CHAPTER 8 

February 1996 and 

February 1997 

EIS Versions: 

Changes in Effects 

Thomas M. Quigley 

Technical Editor 
898 Changes in Effects

Thomas M. Quigley is a range scientist/economist with the USDA Forest Service, Interior Columbia

Basin Ecosystem Management Project, Walla Walla, WA.
TABLE OF 

CONTENTS 

Introduction 

Landscape Ecology 

Major changes that occurred in Standards and Objectives 

Types of Change in Landscape Dynamics 

Landscape Health Evaluation 

Rangeland landscape patterns 

Forest landscape patterns 

Forest-rangeland landscape mosaics 

Dry grass and dry shrub potential vegetation groups 

Cool shrub potential vegetation group 

Woodland potential vegetation group 

Rangeland riparian potential vegetation group 

Dry forest potential vegetation group 

Moist forest potential vegetation group 

Cold forest potential vegetation group 

Alpine potential vegetation group 

Forest soil disturbance 

Rangeland soil disturbance 

Noxious weed risk reduction 

Landscape-scale terrestrial habitats 

Landscape-scale riparian habitats 

Risk reduction to human life and property from wildfire in the urban/wildland interface 

Desired human commodity values (such as timber products and livestock forage) 

Desired human amenity values (such as scenic values, clean air and water, 

and recovery of rare habitats) 

~r {i:!JiJ!i}ili:i!ii~! 

903 

903 

903 

904 

906 

906 

906 

907 

907 

907 

907 

907 

908 

908 

908 

908 

909 

909 

909 

909 

909 

910 

910 

910 

................-.,...................-,-, 

:.:.:.:.:.:+:.:.;.;.;.:.:.;.:,;.:.:+:. 

Changes in Effects i.i.i.i.i.i~iiiiiiiiiii 

========================================== 
90$ Changes in Effects

Significance of Changes 911

Aquatic Ecology 911

Major changes in Standards and Objectives 911

Riparian widths and activities 912

Treatment of Strongholds and At-Risk Populations 913

Treatment of Priority Watersheds and Category Watersheds 913

Road Management 913

Key Salmonid Species Effects 914

Alternatives 1 and 2 914

Alternative 3 914

Alternative 4 914

Alternatives 915

Alternative 6 915

Alternative? 915

Significance of Changes 915

Terrestrial Ecology 917

Major Changes that Occurred in Standards and Objectives 917

Implementing Ecosystem Management 917

Physical Environment 917

Terrestrial Strategy 917

Aquatic/Riparian Strategy 918

Terrestrial and Aquatic Species and Habitats 918

Human Uses and Values and Tribal Interest 919

Road Management 919

Adaptive Management/Monitoring and Accountability 919

Allocations from Northwest Forest Plan 919

Effects on Plant and Animal Species 919

Plants 919

All Rare Plant Species/Communities 920

Upland Shrub Species 921

Forest Species 922

Riparian Species 922
Changes in Effects 30!

Amphibians & Reptiles 922

Waterbirds and Shorebirds 924

Raptors and Gamebirds 924

Woodpeckers, Nuthatches and Swifts 925

Cuckoos, Hummingbirds, and Passerines 926

Bats and Small mammals 927

Carnivores 928

Ungulates 929

Significance of Changes 930

Social-Economic 930

Major Changes that Occurred in Standards and Objectives 930

Types of Changes 931

Significance of Changes 931

Conclusions 932

Acknowledgments 933
902 Changes in Effects
Introduction

^immmnm^^mmim^mmmmmmm^^mmm^^^mimmmBmmiitmmm^Km'--,-,-«. * - •--,.

:

The EIS Teams provided the Science Integration Within each section, changes to the DEIS are disTeam (SIT) with preliminary Draft Environ- cussed in terms of how they affect outcomes and

mental Impact Statements (DEISs) in October consequences related to the effects the SIT staff

1995 containing chapters on the purpose and areas reported for the February 1996 preliminary

need, affected environment, and objectives and draft EISs. The type of effect is described, but no

standards of alternatives for initial evaluation of attempt is made here to describe in complete detail

effects and consequences. This version of the all the associated effects or consequences likely

DEISs did not contain enough detail to make a from implementing the revised DEIS alternatives,

complete evaluation of effects and consequences. The SIT worked closely with the EIS team as they

The SIT provided a preliminary analysis of effects documented effects and consequences within the

to the EIS Teams. In February 1996 the EIS DEIS itself. For an enumeration and discussion of

Teams provided an updated version of the prelim- effects refer directly to the revised DEISs.

inary DEISs for evaluation of alternatives by the

SIT. Interactions with public groups, other agen- LdHflSCflpG ECOlO£V

cies, county and state officials and internal Forest

Service and Bureau of Land Management staff WendelJ. Hann, Rebecca A. Gravenmier, Jeff

continued during the period of alternative devel- Walter, and Thomas Miles

opment. This resulted in continued evolution of

the EIS standards and objectives. The February Major changes that OCCUlTed in

1996 preliminary DEISs were the versions on Standards and Objectives

which the SIT focused its analysis of consequences and effects. This publication documents Changes in the evaluation of alternatives are a

the analysis of the February 1996 version. Nearing

 result of

 changes in the DEIS objectives and stancompletion of the DEISs in February 1997, the

 dards

-

 Some

 changes clarified understanding or

EIS Team provided updated versions of the DEISs improved the methods of modeling and data

for final review by the SIT before publication in analysis. There are no substantial changes in the

May 1997. Because of the fluid nature of the long-term (50 to 100 year) projections and interalternatives, it is essential to refer directly to the pretations. The evaluation of effects for the longDEISs to obtain an understanding of the alterna-

 term

 projected outcomes could not be improved

tives as they are being proposed. given the time available for this evaluation.

The changes in the DEISs from February 1996 to + The short-

 and

 long-term model projections of

February 1997 primarily clarify or define processes landscape processes and functions provide modto be implemented, define completion schedules

 erate

 confidence in outcomes because of the

for standards, tie standards more clearly to objec-

 scale of mapping. Mapping was accomplished at

tives, or define desired ecological outcomes. For

 the

 management region and forest/range PVG

instance, ecological performance measures or quan- grouP

 level with

 statistical data table relationtifiable ecological goals were added to all alterna-

 shiPs to infer trends for finer scale

 «tratificatives. All alternatives continue to describe the

 tions

-

 There was not

 adequate time during the

analysis required to modify non-process EIS stand- previous evaluation or this re-evaluation to map

ards, while providing equal or greater assurance of

 to the scaie of

 Potential Vegetation Groups

meeting objectives. The purpose of this chapter is (PVGs) and develop relationships for effects of

to provide a brief description of the evolution in

 tne

 tine-scale standards,

the EIS and some insight into the changes in The projection models cannot be applied at a

effects and consequences that have resulted. The scak £o accoum for changeS) refinements, and

organization of the chapter is by SIT staff area.

Changes in Effects 903
additions of fine-scale standards that are rela- Improved understanding relative to key compotively independent from the model simulations. nents of the action alternatives affected

An assumption is made that after the first Alternatives 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. This included:

decade the alternative themes and Desired . . ... . .. /- , . /-

Future Conditions (DFCs) will predominate ^ A more realistic understanding of the time of

and conflicts with fine-scale standards will be transition from the current traditional manageresolved through hierarchical landscape assess-

 mem to eco!°£ical

 ^^agement for the action

ment and associated decisions. Consequently, alternatives. This transition time is a result of

the long term relative differences in trends

 the nced

 .

fo^ ;echnologX transfer

- multi-scale

between the alternatives remain the same. integrated risk and opportunity analysis, spatial

pnontization, subbasm review, ecosystem analy-

> There has been considerable refinement of stan- sis, collaboration, and design and implementadards and improved clarity of the differences tion of ecological conservation, restoration and

between alternatives for the short term (first production activities.

decade). However, there appears to be increased „. _. . ... . ~ , , , _ r

potential for conflict between standards and

 2) The mtent in

 Alternatives 3, 4, 6 and 7 for

estimated activity levels in achieving the action pnoritization of restoration and production

alternative (3 through 7) goals, alternative

 actl

L

Vlties m the

 ?L^

/FS

 wildland interface

themes, and desired future conditions (DFCs). with private land urban and rural housing

This potential for conflict was not as evident in developments.

the February 1996 version as it is in the Febru- 3) The transition time to develop wilderness

ary 1997 version. For the earlier evaluation an prescribed natural fire plans for planned igniassumption was made that a hierarchical land- tions to achieve the desired futures for

scape assessment, implementation, monitoring, Alternatives 3, 4, 6, and 7.

and evaluation process would resolve these conflicts to varying degrees for alternatives 3, 4, 5, TvpCS of Change in Landscape

6, and 7 (see table 4-1 in DEIS chapter 4). Dynamics

However, the revised draft EIS alternatives pre- ^

sent some conflicts that can result in a variety of Minor changes were made in the types of manageoutcomes in the first decade. For Alternatives 3 ment in Alternatives 1 and 2 (no action alternathrough 7, this resulted in some modification of tives) to correct earlier interpretation of these

assumptions to eliminate the conflicts. alternatives. These changes were recognized in the

u , , • L L first evaluation of alternatives and accounted for

However, there are changes in the short-term .. ,• • >• • • • T j /r- j j \ -i m the qualitative discussion in the Landscape

(hrst decade) potential outcomes: „ .

 n

 „, , . . . , -,,

r

 „ Ecology Chapters methods section (see Chapter 2

> There is a change in the projected rate of transi- of this document).

tion to the DFCs during the first decade, - ,. . . .. LTJ j-rr

j • i . ° j j • j ror this re-evaluation reliance shifted to different

caused by changes in some standards, improved r , , , , f , . ..„.

, j-r u j j j- j types o f data an d models fo r evaluating dirterences

understanding or the standards, and improved /r , ~ . . . , ° .

, , c , . TT.-I ij- between alternatives. 1 his includes an increased methods or evaluation. 1 his has resulted in .. . c . .

, . r i • • i • j a reliance on the type or management prescription

changes in some or the original projected effects ., .,- • ji n- j

c fS , c , i->rMc II L jj- model, with its associated long-term errects and

for Chapter 4 of the DEISs, as well as the addi- . , , , ° , , , . .

c • i TU i j • • assumptions, rather than the modeled pro ections

tion of new material. 1 he slowdown in transi- r

 r

 ,- . , ,.

 r

 ,

, T^C^ j i i or amounts of vegetation types and disturbances,

tion to the UbCs caused by changes in stan- „, . .. . ° r , , , • , , i, . ., n- JAI • i j-7 1 he implications or these models retain some level

dards primarily arrected Alternatives 3 and 7. r c-j • j • j-a- L

or confidence in detecting differences between

alternatives even with substantial conflicts

904 Changes in Effects
between goals, themes, DFCs, activity levels and fragmented, and lack large overstory and emerstandards. In addition, the models are not as sus- gent live and dead tree characteristics in the forceptible to differences between alternatives being est landscapes. The range landscapes often have

minimized by the coarse resolution of mapping. widespread effects of soil erosion and exotic

Descriptions of these models and how they were plant invasion. These landscapes require a long

mapped are included in Chapter 2 of this report. period of careful application of conservation,

„. . . . . . . restoration, and production activities to develop

This re-evaluation reduces the emphas.s on quan- ^ knd e elemems and M f enta_

native projections of vegetation types and distur- dye of ^ functioning system,

bances, which are much more susceptible to conflicts between the goals, themes, DFCs, activity 2) the ecological management response —

levels, and standards, as well as loss of resolution Ecosystem management promotes the transition

due to the coarse scale. of current landscape patterns toward healthy

. i-i • /ii (proper functioning) landscape systems b y

Several generalized quantitative measures (land- -i- • L ui j

,

&

I 1 ., ,. , . ,,. utilizing human technology and energy to mmscape health, soil disturbance, succession/distur- • • j cc

.

 r • i i i • • Sate or

 restore interacting cause-and-effect

bance regimes, landscape patterns, and transition i • , • ^, • • • , • ,

r i i'rr f i \ i i i i relationships. These activities are designed to

times of the different models) were developed that t i • i -i-u • •

. ... . r r~ , i i represent the ecological equilibrium interacare less susceptible to loss of confidence due to the • ,.t

 j • u i

n. r i i 11 • i tions, while producing human resource values

conflicts of standards and alternative themes. (both commodity and amcnitv). In the short

From a landscape ecology perspective, the rate of term, ecological management is expected to stalandscape change caused by implementing an bilize landscapes that are currently in disequilibalternative can be measured by the similarity to

 fium

 and slowly increase their predictability of

the various landscape patterns of succession/dis- providing for human resource values (both comturbance regimes for the desired management modity and amenity). In the long term, ecologimodel. When this similarity is measured through cal management is expected to increase a systime a transition rate can be evaluated.

 tem>s

 ability to produce human resource values

at lower cost, while sustaining landscape capaThere are two general types of management bility and native biodiversity,

responses:

The transition time from the current condition

1) the traditional management response — to landscape health for the ecological manageTraditional management focuses on sustained ment respOnse is dependent on the status of the

yield, protection, or exploitation of specific ele- current pattern. Landscapes in traditional

ments, such as timber production, livestock graz- reserve patterns that are predominantly mature

ing, wilderness, and riparian buffers, in a man- or late-seral can be transitioned rapidly to

ner relatively independent of the interconnected healthy landscape (proper functioning) system

cause-and-efTect relationships across landscapes. patterns with conservation, restoration, and proConsequently, the interaction of effects between duction activities. This is because the large overmanaged elements, other elements, and dynam- story and emergent live and dead trees are still

ics of landscape disturbances often conflict. In present in the forest landscapes, and exotics or

the long term this type of management can soil erosion have not precluded native system

result in disequilibrium of ecological systems and potentials in the rangeland landscapes. In condecline in ability to produce expected human trast)

 landscapes in traditional reserve patterns

resource values (both commodity and amenity). that have been ^d by a severe disturbance

This results in the loss of landscape health. evem have often lost jarge overstory and emerLandscapes in traditional commodity patterns gent live and dead tree characteristics. These

are predominantly early- or mid-serai, highly landscapes require a long period of careful

Changes in Effects 905
application of conservation, restoration, and the standards. This would result in traditional

production activities to develop landscape ele- reserve patterns clumped in the reserves, and a

ments and patterns representative of healthy mix of traditional reserve, commodity, and proper

landscapes. functioning systems patterns on the other lands.

.. . , , „ , i . i s r- While action activities would be the dominant

Alternatives 1 and 2 (the no action alternatives) fit ^^ ^ jj^ ch in Mteaa^es 3>

the traditional management response. The desired 4> ^ ^ ^ othef disturbanccs> such ^ wildfire;

fUture for Alternative 1 in roaded, non-wuderness d ^ $tress mortali insect/disease mortality)

areas would generally fit the traditional commodi- and ^^ mvasion would dominate in

ty pattern for forest landscapes, range landscapes, alternativ 7

and forest-range landscapes. In contrast, the

desired future for Alternative 1 in wilderness areas Areas that currently fit the healthy landscape patwould generally fit the traditional reserve pattern tern are relatively easy to maintain through reprefor forest landscapes, range landscapes, and forest- sentation of cause-and-effect relationships with

range landscapes. Alternative 2 would be similar application of conservation, restoration, and proto Alternative 1 in wilderness, but the non-wilder- duction activities,

ness would be a fragmented combination of the

traditional reserve and results of historic manage- Transition rates from current landscape conditions

ment patterns along stream buffers and in remain-

 to the

 ^fd *""«;

 landscaPe

 Conditions

 were

ing late-serai forest areas, and the traditional com- estimated for each alternative. The estimate conmodity management patterns in the upland range-

 slders

 ^hkdy sim[

laritv

 °f the landscape pattern

land and mid-serai forest types. °f succession/disturbance regimes to the desired

future landscape systems. 1 hese transition rates

To varying degrees Alternative 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 fit are described in the sections below with reference

the ecological management response. The desired to short-and long-term trends,

future for Alternatives 4 and 6 would fit the

healthy landscape (properly functioning system) Landscape Health Evaluation

pattern for forest landscapes, rangeland landscapes, and forest-range landscapes. While Rangeland landscape patterns — In the next

Alternatives 3 and 5 have a DFC for ecosystem

 10

 7ears>

 none of the

 alternatives would change to

management that fits the ecological management healthy landscapes because landscape patterns of

response, the emphasis on local priorities for rangeland vegetation composition and structure

Alternative 3 and production priorities for Alter- respond very slowly to changes in management,

native 5 would not provide an equal emphasis for In the long term (50. to iQO-years), Alternatives 4

conservation, restoration, and production activi- and 6 WQU,d $how a high fate of transition toward

ties based on risks and opportunities across the heahhy landscapeS) and Alternative 3 would show

Basin. Consequently, Alternatives 3 and 5 would a moderate trend toward healthy landscapes.

result in a mix of ecological and traditional Alternatives 5 and 7 would have a low rate of

responses. Alternative 3, because of the local transition, and Alternatives 1 and 2 would result

emphasis, would have a fine-scale mix caused by jn no cnange

local priorities, while Alternative 5, because of the

emphasis for activities in more productive areas, Forest landscape patterns — Alternatives 1,

would have a coarser scale mix related to potential 2, 3, 5, or 7 would show no change in trend

vegetation and current condition composition. toward healthy landscapes in the next 10 years,

Alternative 4 would produce a moderate transiAlternative 7 has a very conflicting result caused don in the short tem Aiternative 6 would result

by the mixing of the ecological and traditional in low achievemem of healthy landscapes in the

responses m the theme and DFCs, as well as in short term

§QS Changes in Effects
Alternative 4 would produce a high transition rate tive 5 would remain low in its ability to achieve

to healthy landscapes in the long term. Alternative healthy landscape systems. Alternatives 1 and 2

6 would respond at a slower rate in the long term would continue their trend away from healthy

than Alternative 4, because the low rate of activi- landscapes in the long term,

ties in the first 10 years would result in substantial ,-. i • « . •

differences in disturbance and succession. The ^ shrub P»*»"5" vegetation group —

long-term trend for forest landscape patterns in if <he short "!rm under Alternatives 3, 4, 5, and

Alternatives 1 and 2 would not change, while

 7' th

«e would be a moderate trend toward

Alternatives 3, 5, and 7 would result in a low rate

 h^th[ "^Pf due to rela

«

vel7 rapid response

of transition to healthy landscapes.

 of c°o1 shrublands to

 treatments such as improved

grazing management or weed control compared to

Forest-rangeland landscape mosaics — the dry shrub and dry grass potential vegetation

None of alternatives would result in a transition groups. Alternative 6 has a low trend because of a

to healthy landscapes in the short term, because of lower level of activities in the next 10 years. In

slow response in forest-rangeland landscape contrast, cool shrublands would not trend toward

mosaics to changes in management. healthy landscapes under Alternatives 1 and 2, in

_ , . . r i r tne short term.

In the long term, the response or the rorest-rangeland landscape mosaics would differ from either In the long term, Alternatives 4 and 6 would

forest or rangeland landscapes. Alternative 4 result in a high transition to healthy landscapes

would produce a high positive trend toward due to a high emphasis on restoration, including

healthy landscapes, and Alternatives 3 and 5 livestock grazing management. Alternatives 3, 5,

would show a low trend toward healthy land- and 7 would show a moderate trend toward

scapes, with Alternative 6 ranking as moderate. healthy landscapes. Cool shrublands would not

Alternatives 1,2, and 7 would result in continued trend toward healthy landscapes under Alternatransition away from healthy landscapes; Alterna- tives 1 and 2 in the long term.

tive 7 would not produce a net transition because -_. ,, , . , L I r c c . i - i j woodland potential vegetation group — I n

the dynamics or hre, fuels, exotic plants, and sue- . .

 r

 . ,.

e

. „ *T ? r , _

cession within reserves would not trend toward a *e sh°" fTM Un,

der

 Alternatives 3, 45, and 7,

healthy balance in the long term.

 there w°uld bf. a fow trend

 TMrd healthy landscapes due to limitations in technology. AlternaDry grass and dry shrub potential vegeta- tive 6 would result in moderate transition to

tion groups — In the short term, Alternatives 3 healthy landscapes due to emphasis on technology

and 4 would result in a moderate trend toward development; Alternatives 1 and 2 would show no

healthy landscapes, due to the strong emphasis on trend toward healthy landscapes.

perennial grass and shrub restoration through , , ,. . , .. . . i r • j j In the lone term, Alternatives 4 and 6 would procontrol of noxious weeds and management to . . . ° ' . . . . . ,

 v

• L j u ,- i T duce a high trend toward healthy landscapes;

reduce cheaterass and other exotic annuals. In .. .

&

- - ._, ,,, • i iji j_ JLI U Alternatives 3, 5, and 7 would produce a modercontrast, there would be no trend toward healthy . ...

 r

. _ . .

landscapes for Alternatives 1 and 2, and only a ate tref

d; a

,

nd

 ^^^ ' and 2 show no trend

low rate of transition to healthy landscapes for

 toward health

y

 landscaPes

-

Alternatives 5, 6, and 7. Rangeland riparian potential vegetation

T I I A I • / -u-L- u RTOUD — I n th e short term, th e strong emphasis

In the long term, Alternative 4, with its high

 e

.

r

. . .A1 . % / i s

• i • u i • i • L on riparian restoration in Alternatives 3, 4, and 6 restoration emphasis, would result in a high tran-

 r

.. . . . . . JLILI J A I -is is predicted t o produce a moderate trend toward

sition toward healthy landscapes. Alternatives 3, 6, .

 r

. . . .

 r

 . i -, u i j •• ii healthy landscapes. A moderate transition t o

and 7 would reach a moderate transition level to i 11 i ^ • , ,• I/-A I

• ,,1 1 -L I , JA I healthy landscapes i s also predicted ro r Alternative

healthy landscapes in the long term, and Alterna- _ ' , r, , r,- i 7 as a result or the removal or livestock grazing

Changes in Effects 90?
pressure. Alternatives 2 and 5 would have a low In the long term, Alternatives 4 and 6 would

rate of trend, and Alternative 1 would show no have a high transition toward healthy landscapes

transition toward healthy landscapes. because of their restoration emphasis. Alternatives

, , ,. . 1^1 1 3 and 5 would have a moderate transition rate

In the long term Alternatives 1 and 5 would toward ^^ land In the short ^ j

result in a low, Alternative 2 in a moderate, and ^ Alternatives l and 2 would show no trend

Alternatives 3, 4, 6, and 7 in a high trend toward towafd heakhy landscapes and Alternative 7

healthy landscapes. would show a ,QW trend due M the imbalance

Dry forest potential vegetation group — °f succession and disturbance in reserves and

Historically, a mixture of stable and cyclic succes- the lack of emphasis on western white pine

sion/disturbance regimes were produced with restoration,

mosaics of open to somewhat closed forests domi- Cold forest potential vegetation group —

nated by ponderosa pine or Douglas-fir. Similar UnUke ^ d and moist fo

e

restS)

 ^ £w forest

disturbance effects need to be restored or imitated has less ff disturbance and slower succesfor the dry forest potential vegetation group to sk)n rates; therefore; conditions generall are dos_

trend toward healthy landscapes In the short ef w Ae historical of variability. However,

term Alternatives 1 and 2 would result in no traditional fire suppression practices have resulted

trend to heahhy landscapes. Alternatives 3, 4, and in si lificadon of kndscape patternS) and white.

EE 5:7 would produce a moderate trend to bark me [s ded[n[ idl ftom effects of blis.

healthy landscapes with Alternative 4 showing a ^ ^ and fire exclusion In the short term>

quicker shift toward healthy landscapes because of Mtern^[ves 3, 4, and 5 wouid have a moderate

I^^F^ °n 'f

 t0ratl0n-'^ternat1VCS 5' 6> and

 trend and Alternative 6 would have a low trend

UCRB:7 show a low trend due to low rates of tQward heahh lands

restoration.

. . ., _ , , , , , In the lone term, Alternatives 4 and 6 would have

In the long term, Alternatives 3, 4 and 6 would a ^ babm of transidon to healthy land.

produce a high trend toward healthy landscapes because of thdr ^ Qn restoration>

because of the emphasis on prescribed fire, thin- whUe Altemative 5 would have a moderate trend.

nmg of dense stands, and promoting early-serai Jn ^ short and , term> Altemative ? WQuld

^-"tolerant and large trees. Alternatives 5 and ^^ ^ a ,ow transhion to health landscapes

bblb:7 would show a moderate trend toward L r-u i L • i j-

.... . .. . T ,,,,,„ ... because or imbalance between successional condihealthy landscapes, Alternative UCRB:7 would be - j j- u j L i i r

. i » i • i ^ ill - tions an d disturbance processes an d th e lack o r

low, and Alternatives 1 and 2 would result in no L • L • u i • A i ' i , , , i -ii emphasis on whitebark pine restoration. Alternatrend to healthy landscapes in the long term. • i j o u i • j j ' v f> nves 1 and 2 would result in no trend toward

Moist forest potential vegetation group — healthy landscapes.

This includes some of the most productive land in M . tentid vegetation group — This is

the project area. In the absence of disturbance a sensitiye eco which has ,ow productivitv

biomass accumulates rapidly and competition tor ii r • -a rui

.... . .

 v 3

. . i . • and slow rates or succession. Because or the slow

available carbon and water increases. Achieving ^ of re m restoration) none of the j^.

healthy landscapes would mean increasing the ^^ would oduce a h[, trend toward

amount or late-serai rorest with a corresponding LIUI J • • L u u ui

. • • i i r u • healthy landscapes in either the short or the long

decrease in mid-serai rorest, as well as promoting A i ., j 0 ii JA 1

. . iii i • term. Alternatives 1 and 2 rated low, and Alternavponderosa pine, western larch and western white •a/j/'j j • j j

. T • r i A1 . „ / i , tives 3, 4, and 6 rated moderate in trend toward

vpine. In the short term, Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 u i L i j u u j i

 . . . . . . i i ! i i healthy landscapes in the short and long term.

would result ma moderate trend to healthy land- Alternatives 5 and 7 rated low in the short term

scapes, while Alternative 6 would be low. and mo(krate m ^ long tefm

908 Changes in Effects
Forest soil disturbance — Alternatives that Alternative 5 would show a low trend and

would increase the amount and intensity of soil Alternatives 1 and 2 would show no trend toward

disturbance would be more likely to harm soil sta- weed reduction or healthy landscapes in either the

bility, function, and productivity. Soil disturbance short or long term.

can come from a number of sources, including T, , ^ _ • i L i_«^ ^ Ti

... j •• • -ij j -L j Landscape-scale terrestrial habitats — In the

timber harvest and thinning, wild and prescribed , ,*, ,, . , ...

c , . ,,. i j -UP/- short and long term, Alternative 4 would show hres, roads, recreation, and livestock and wildhre , , . . , ,

., . , IJL L moderate trends toward improvement due to the

grazing. Alternative 1 would have the greatest , . . • r i i i r-ij - L -LI j i _ emphasis o n active restoration o r landscape-scale

amount or soil disturbance in the long and short • \ \ i • TII A i

. , , j i_ i L i j terrestrial habitats. In the short term, Alternatives

term with no trend toward healthy landscapes. ., -, ^ \ -, \ • \ \ \ \ •

A, . ,, , j _. u i • i L 2, 3, 6, and 7, which have a lower emphasis on

Alternatives 2, 5, and 7 would result in low prob- . ... , , , ,

 r

 , , ,-!• r j -i j- L L L restoration activities, would show a low trend and

ability or reducing soil disturbance in the short ., , , ,. , . , , , T-L • j r j • r r A i • Alternatives 1 and 5 would show no trend toward

term. 1 his trend would remain low ror Alternative . , . , . , , , . T . L i AI • i / is i j improving landscape-scale terrestrial habitats.

2 in the long term. Alternatives 3, 4, and 6 would

 r ° r

result in a moderate trend to healthy landscapes in In the long term, Alternatives 4, 6, and 7 would

the short and long term, because of higher levels produce moderate trends toward improvement,

of restoration activities or mitigation for best but none of the alternatives would produce high

management practices (BMPs) that resemble nat- trends. The connectivity of terrestrial species popural succession/disturbance regimes. Alternatives 5 ulations has been altered by land uses and land

and 7 would have low rates in the first decade ownership patterns that have' fragmented many

increasing to moderate levels in the long term. species habitats. This loss of connectivity prevents

•D i j -i j- *_ t. -PL u • these fragmented populations from interbreeding, Kangeland soil disturbance—The emphasis ,. ,

 &

 ,

 K r . „. . .. . p "i • L L • j • which puts them at risk. 1 here is little that can be

on soil protection through improved vegetation . r>T * * T- <-• i • • i i i. i • j done on BLM- or rorest service-administered

management and livestock grazing systems, and , , , , . , , , ...

• i . . • j i lands alone, relative to landscape-scale conditions,

the resultant improvements in residual cover, . , , , , ,

 r

. , i j j j j jj to improve healthy landscapes above moderate would produce a moderate trend toward reduc- , ,

 r J r

tion in the short and long term under Alternatives

3 and 4. For Alternative 6, this moderate trend Landscape-scale riparian habitats —

would improve to high in the long term. Alterna- Alternative 4 would show a high trend toward

tives 5 and 7 would produce a low trend in the improvement in landscape-scale riparian habitats

short term because their lack of restoration in both the short and long term. Alternative 6

emphasis would not reduce exotic plant invasion would show a moderate ability to achieve healthy

or effects of severe wildfire. In the long term, both landscapes in the short term and a high rate in the

alternatives would increase to moderate. Alterna- long term. In the short and long term, Alternatives 1 and 2 show no ability to achieve healthy tives 3 and 7 would show a moderate trend and

landscapes in either the short or the long term. Alternative 1 would show no trend toward

vr j . i j _. T c , improvement of landscape-scale riparian habitats

Noxious weed risk reduction — In forest and .

 v iii r • «i • ^i

i j A r -1J/-11 - du e t o th e lack o f restoration. Alternative 5 ha s

rangeland systems, Alternatives 3 and 4, with their , , . , r . . . . L • P i • • i i i i low and moderate trends tor the short and long

high emphasis o n noxious weed control, would -IAI I IA I ^ 1 1

° j r

u . , , , . ,., term, respectively. Although Alternative 2 would

rproduce a high trend toward noxious weed risk • j r • r- • i i • j . • u u L L j r provide for more protection of riparian habitats,

reduction in both the short and long term. i i i r • • j r • r

A I

 . ^i-7-i i i - • • th e lack o f active restoration an d fragmentation o f Alternatives 6 and 7, with less emphasis on activi- . , , , . , . . . P i ii ijj • j j terrestrial habitats would result i n a low transition

ty levels that would reduce noxious weed spread, , , , . . ',, , , j ju ii to healthy landscapes, would produce a moderate trend toward healthy ' r

landscapes in both the short and long term.

Changes in Effects 909
Risk reduction to human life and property ability of these commodities would decline and

from wildfire in the urban/wildland inter- the trend toward healthy landscapes would drop

face — This was a key variable for assessing to a moderate rate for Alternative 1 and low for

healthy landscapes. Alternative 1 focuses on com- Alternative 2. In the short term, Alternatives 4

modity elements, Alternative 2 on commodity ele- and 5 would produce a moderate trend toward

ments with riparian and old forest protection, and healthy landscapes, primarily as an offshoot of

Alternative 5 on economic efficiency. This would restoration activities. In the long term, Alternaincrease fragmentation of landscape mosaics, and tive 4 would transition to a high rate as condiwould not focus on fuel conditions in the inter- tions become balanced and commodity flows are

face areas or on representation of disturbance produced with only low to moderate levels of

regimes appropriate to healthy landscape systems. restoration. However, Alternative 5 would decline

Therefore, diere would be low or no levels of risk to moderate as an imbalance develops in areas

reduction under Alternatives 1, 2, and 5, in the with low productivity and low restoration emphashort term; and in fact, it is anticipated that long- sis that are adjacent to areas where commodity

term risk under these alternatives would actually production is a priority. Alternative 3 is moderate

increase. In direct contrast, Alternative 4 focuses in both short and long term because of moderate

on fuel conditions in the interface areas and on levels of restoration and emphasis on connectivirepresentation of succession/disturbance regimes ty. Alternative 6, with a short-term low trend,

to reduce vulnerability to wildfire, resulting in would increase to a moderate level in the long

high levels of wildfire risk reduction in the short term. In the short and long term, Alternative 7

and long term. Alternative 3 would have moderate would rank low in its ability to achieve healthy

and high transition levels for the short and long landscapes with regard to commodity production.

term, respectively. Alternative 6 would show low T-» • j L • i / L

.... L-iiii j • u u Desired human amenity values (such as

ability to achieve healthy landscapes in the short . . . * , , ', ...

 J i- i • i i scenic values, clean air and water, and

term, but would improve to high in the long f , , . __ ^ ~, ,

T L L JA I • - 7 recovery o r rare habitats) — Th e production

term. In the short term under Alternative 7, cur- r . .

 J

. . • \ / \

. i ,. . , j . i or desired human amenity values (such as scenic

rent risk conditions would increase because , , . , ' , r

, j . .,,[. • cc u values, clean air and water, and recovery of rare

reduced active wildfire suppression errorts would , . . , . , . , , . / ,

, i j • L • j • • L • u • i habitats) in healthy landscape systems is almost

be coupled with continued increase in high-risk .. . ' .

 r

. . r ..

-. i j. • ij A i i i directly opposite to the production of commodity

fuel conditions on lands near reserves. Although , /• f i • , i -> A i • *>

...r. , r i i i • i u values for Alternatives 1 and 2. Alternatives 3

as wildhres reduce ruels, the long-term risk would , , _ .. , . . . . , ...

,,. j, .. LILI J through 7 display varying levels in ability to prodecline and the transition to healthy landscapes , ° • , i n r • • *i •

... , ~L • i j duce a sustainable flow of amenities. Alternatives

would increase to a moderate rate. 1 his would , .„ , , i • i i 1-1 - i •

... r -i ic • 1 and 2 would respond with low ability to achieve

occur at a very high cost or wildhre suppression, . , , . .

 r

. . .

 J

. . .

. . , Jo r j- i healthy landscapes in the short term and would

risk to homeowners, and severity or disturbance ./ , .

r

 . ... r

rr actually result in a long-term decline of amenity

values. Alternative 7 would sustain moderate levDesired human commodity values (such as els of amenity values in the short and long term.

timber products and livestock forage) — Alternatives 3, 4, and 6 would produce only a

Healthy landscape system response for desired moderate flow of amenity values in the short

human commodity values (such as timber prod- term, because many restoration activities (such as

ucts and livestock forage) is a paradox. The short- prescribed fire, extensive thinning, and road cloterm transition to healthy landscapes with regard sures) can detract from amenity values. Alternative

to commodities would be high under Alternative 3 would remain moderate in the long term

1 and moderate under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. because of lower investment in restoration. In the

However, because landscape relationships would long term under Alternatives 4 and 6, as more

become imbalanced, in the long term the avail- landscapes become native in appearance, high lev-

,$10 Changes in Effects
els of amenity values would be available with only Alternative 5 would have a low ability to achieve

low to moderate levels of restoration. healthy landscapes in the short or long term.

c" •£• f /-<L Alternative 6 would have a low ability to achieve

Significance ot Changes heakhy kndscapes in the short term but a high

The changes in the standards and objectives for ability in the long term.

the Alternatives will provide some clarity for the Alternative 7 would have low ability to achieve

short term (first decade but these changes appear heakh lands in the short term and would

to increase the potential for conflict between stan- show a moderate trend toward hM knd

dards and estimated activity levels in achieving the • . i

action alternative goals, themes and desired future

conditions (DFCs). Aquatic Ecology

A combination of changes in some standards, clarification in understanding the standards, and

 Bruce K Rieman> James R

-

 Sedel1' and Dann

y

 C Lee

improvement in methods of evaluation, caused a -\r • r • e J J J

change in the evaluation in the rate of transition MajOt changes in Standards and

to the DFCs during the first decade. Objectives

The opportunity to simultaneously achieve the The February 1996 evaluation of effects on aquatecosystem management EIS goals using the lowest ic habitats and native fishes consisted of three

long-term investment in restoration and mitiga- steps. Step one identified the level of protection,

tion, appears to be highest with alternatives that maintenance, or restoration of aquatic and riparihave landscape patterns that are becoming consis- an habitats offered by each alternative. Step two

tent with: identified changes in distribution and status of

...... . . . . seven widely distributed salmonid species that

• their biophysical succession/disturbance regimes, cQuld be expeaed undef each ^^^ Step

• reduction of soil disturbance and decrease of three involved a similar, though less intensive,

exotic species invasion, effort to identify expected changes in populations

• restoration of landscape-scale native terrestrial

 of

 eighteen more narrowly distributed fish species

and riparian habitats and appropriate of special concern. This section reexamines the

connectivity earlier conclusions in light of the most recent

j ic • i • u L j iMJi j changes to the DEISs.

• reduced fire risk in the urban and rural wildland

interface, and During the February 1996 evaluation, activity

• provision of levels of human commodity and

 tables were

 "^dopcd for each forest and range

amenity values consistent with the other factors.

 clus<er bX Alternative to aid in analysis of effects,

to allow projections of outcomes if the various

Alternatives 1 and 2 would provide no or low alternatives were to be implemented, and to indiability overall to achieve healthy landscape systems cate relative differences among alternatives" (DEIS

in either the short or the long term. Chapter 3). The evaluation of aquatic effects used

., .,. ... , .... these spatial and temporal allocations of manageAlternative 3 would show moderate ability to ... j j j • • •

, . 1111 1 -iii i i ment activities an d road densities t o pr o ec t

achieve healthy landscapes in both the short and . , . a r> i_ j

• ' r potential management influences on hshes under

° ' each alternative. This included the development

Alternative 4 would have a moderate ability to of four primary pieces of information: 1) a series

achieve healthy landscapes in the short term and a of classification trees to associate current patterns

high ability in the long term. in fish distributions with landscape characteristic,

Changes in Effects 911
which were then used to predict changes in fish poses of protection and restoration of aquatic and

distribution that might track changes in landscape riparian function and structure) among the altercharacteristics; 2) a summary of anticipated road natives did not change significantly with the

density changes across the current distribution of DEIS changes. Alternatives 6 and 4 still contain

fishes; 3) a summary of the current ownership and the largest RCA areas, followed by Alternatives 7,

management emphasis for the current distribution 3, 2, 5, and 1 in descending order. In earlier preof fishes; and 4) a summary of the anticipated liminary draft EISs, Alternatives 4 and 6 (and 5

intensity of management activities across the cur- outside commodity areas) interim RCA widths

rent distribution of fishes. Each of these provided and standards could be modified only after ecosysa sense of where and to what extent anticipated tern analysis. In the February 1996 evaluation, it

levels of management activity for each alternative was assumed that modifications would not result

would likely influence each of the fish species in degradation or halt restoration trends in habiconsidered. tats, populations or riparian condition, and there-

_. r->i-ir- i i • f°re received positive evaluations if Ecosystem

Because the recent DEIS changes do not require ^ is M ^ Watershed Scale were compieted.

changes to the activity tables used in the February Jn ^ revised Dm Mteaatives 3,4,5 (outside

1996 evaluation, projected trends from the earlier commodity emphasis areas)) and 7 now allow for

analysis in allocation of roads and other land- modification of standards only after Ecosystem

disturbing activities, and in landscape-level alloca- ^ is at ^ Watershed Scale is conducted. The

tion of restoration activities still apply. These ofi ind ass tion lies A ic and rf ian

trends were instrumental m the evaluation of dif- protection> theri) is strengthened for Alternative 3,

ferences between alternatives. and remains much ^ ^ ^ in ^ earlief ^.

In both the February 1996 evaluation and this uation for Alternatives 4, 5, and 7. Alternative 6

review, the aquatic and riparian conservation

 now

 provides a four-year transition period in

strategies were evaluated based on riparian area which changes to EIS standards can be made

interim widths and activities allowed within them, without ecosystem analysis in areas where Ecotreatment of strongholds and at-risk populations, system Analysis at the Watershed Scale is not

treatment of priority watersheds or aquatic cate- required. The change to Alternative 6 is less risky

gories, amount and guidance of watershed and

 now

 because of the large area in which Ecosystem

riparian restoration, and other major assumptions. Analysis at the Watershed Scale is required, and

Central to the evaluation is the assumption that

 tr

»e requirement that subbasin reviews would be

Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale1 allows completed in one year. The conclusion is that prolandscape, forest, and aquatic/riparian objectives tection and restoration potential under Alternative

to be met with greater efficiency and effectiveness, <$ improved from the earlier evaluation,

given the ecological variability among and within The D£IS ch [n AJternadve 4 prohibitin

subwatersheds and subbasms. 1 hererore, the more • -r- JT • j j D/^A ... . i . i site-specific modifications to standards, RCA

area which requires ecosystem analysis, the more • \ / j D- • x/r r\L.-

,

M

 • i v- i . i i widths, and Riparian Management Ob ectives

certainty m the minds or the reviewers that the i-o^nr\ \ -u n A i • u

. < , . . .... r . . . (RMOs) without Ecosystem Analysis at the

alternative s ob ectives will be met ror ecological as TM/ i j c i c. • j

„ '. . . , ° watershed Scale create some confusion and uncerwell as economic and social reasons. • c i L c • • tamty. bor example, there are very lew prescriptive

Riparian widths and activities — The area of standards which a manager would want or need to

land within Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs) change in order to manage vegetation within

(which direct management activities for the pur- RCAs. Both a project-scale NEPA document or

'Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale, Federal Guide for Watershed Analysis, version 2.2, revised August 1995. The analysis

process includes topic areas to ensure that analyses demonstrate a basic understanding and knowledge of the watershed.

Changes in Effects
an ecosystem analysis logic trail can be used to objectives. The positive side of this alternative is

describe how timber or vegetative management that the aggressive activity levels have the potenshall benefit aquatic and riparian processes and tial for accelerated learning under the adaptive

function. Standards for Alternatives 4, parts of 5, management paradigm, if effective monitoring

and 6 clearly outline the primary purpose of accompanies implementation.

RCAs, specifying "vegetation management shall be Treatment rf Strongholds and At-Risk

conducted only to protect, maintain, or restore _ , . .p' . .

riparian and instream processes and functions and Populations - The February 1996 alternatives

to meet the intent of zones 1, 2a, and 2b...timely required ecosystem analysis in strongholds of

opportunities shall be provided to interagency

 nat1^ ^almonids in Category 2 and 3 subbasms

partners for agreement on vegetation management for Alternatives 3, 4, 5 (outside commodity areas),

".. . . „7,. „ " " and 6. 1 he recent Uhlb changes in alternatives 3-

activities in RCAs. _ . . .- . . .

 &

7 provide specihc objectives to protect or restore

Uncertainty in Alternative 4 arises because a much strongholds in Category 2, and to protect strongsmaller area of the landscape triggers Ecosystem holds in Category 3 subbasins. However, there are

Analysis at the Watershed Scale, and implementa- now no standards coupled with those objectives,

tion of RCA objectives could be achieved project Instead, the standards which trigger Ecosystem

by uncoordinated project. At least three possibili- Analysis at the Watershed Scale are in the

ties for interpretation of this alternative exist: 1) it Implementing Ecosystem Management section,

involves greater risk for aquatic and riparian The standards for Alternatives 3, 6 and 7 are quite

resources than Alternatives 2, 3, 6, and 7 because similar to those evaluated earlier. In Alternative 4,

of aggressive, project-scale implementation of they are tied only to federally listed and proposed

activities and restoration, which make this less of species. Alternative 4 then becomes much more

an ecosystem/landscape management alternative species-centric and less an ecosystem management

without focused restoration priorities; 2) it is a strategy. This raises further concerns about the

reserve-type system centered around RCAs which ability to achieve the goals and objectives of the

would affect between 25 to 50 percent of the alternative. The February 1996 evaluation relied

landscape (in this case, RCA widths on intermit- on models which used strong, depressed, and

tent streams are not modified and vegetation fringe population distributions to examine the

management is very conservative within the entire overlap with activities, management intensities,

RCA; thus landscape restoration and minimizing and road densities for each alternative. These

of landscape disturbance patterns would not be models did not change for this current review,

achieved); or 3) the alternative is much like _, en • • wr 11 j

Alternative 6, with managers deciding that land- Treatment of Priority Watersheds and

scape management requires the modification of Category Watersheds — Subbasm reviews are

standards, Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed

 defmed as

 <°

 what

 ^ are a

L

nd wher^ ^he"

Scale is conducted, and the information base from ^l

 m"stj°<: c°m

P

le*d m the revised DEISs. In

which to proceed in a prudent manner is

 both the Februa7 19% an

L

d

 P^sent evaluations

acquired. The first possibility has greater short-

 lf

 ^ asf fed ** «««^olds can be identified

term and long-term risks and uncertainty sur-

 and ve"fied wlth subbasm anal

y

sls' J was

 ^f

rounding it. The second possibility has less short- assumed that aquatic categories can be amended

term risk and more long-term risk of not meeting

 and verified through subbasm revlews'

watershed, terrestrial and landscape standards and Road Management — The February 1996

objectives. The third would afford the least risky evaluation assumed that the requirement for

ecological solution. Given that activity levels have development and implementation of a standardnot changed for Alternative 4, more risk and ized road condition and risk inventory would be

uncertainty is assumed for it to meet goals and met early in the life of the plan in order to estabChanges in Effects $13
lish watershed restoration priorities. If it was not, important change in projections for Yellowstone

watershed restoration outcomes would be uncer- cutthroat trout is anticipated,

tain and the intent of Alternatives 3 through 7 ., , „. . ..

would be more difficult to meet. If an accurate Alternative 4 — The requirement for

road inventory is not completed, subbasin reviews Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scak in suband Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale watersheds that support listed species wil extend

cannot effectively address road-related risks or over much of the stream-type chinook salmon and

restoration needs. This assumption still applies,

 ste<rlhead

 distributions in the Snake River Basin

given the required inventory specified by the stan- »"d m uPPer Washing

ton' but not

 "j central

dards. In addition, specific direction is given for

 Ore§on

- Restoration activities guided by Ecoroad reduction, net increases of roads to no more

 s

y

stem

 ^515 at

L

the

 Watershed Scale may conthan one road-density class for Alternatives 3, 4, ^TM and resto

u

re chm°ok and stee head habltfts

and 5, and no net increases in roads in low roaded

 m

u

those a^as better than

 P^ousl7 P^ected.

areas unless Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed

 That

 P051TM chang

e 1S

 Confounded by uncertainScale is conducted for Alternatives 6 and 7. %wlth

 implementation. Activities within the core

or strongholds tor stream-type chinook salmon,

Key Salmonid Species Effects ^^^±^'1^ -h.

The following discussion focuses primarily on the Watershed Scale. The high timber harvest and

key salmonid species and how the February 1996 thinning activity levels expected in central

evaluation might change in response to the Oregon, and the potential lack of Ecosystem

changes in alternatives. Analysis at the Watershed Scale means that risks

are higher and the probability of effectively focusAlternatives 1 and 2 — No changes are needed ing forest and watershed restoration is lower. The

in the evaluation. ultimate effect depends heavily on how the alterAlternative 3 — Ecosystem Analysis at the

 native is

 implemented.

Watershed Scale will be required in stronghold Changes in this alternative have mixed implicasubwatersheds and across the distributions of wild tions for other species. Those parts of the distribustream-type chinook, steelhead, and most if not tions of bull trout> westslope cutthroat, and redall of that for bull trout. Most species will general- band trout that overlap with federally listed stocks

ly benefit through better planned restoration are likely to benefit Category 1, FEMAT key

activities where they occur. The effect of the watersheds, and wilderness areas cover important

changes in Alternative 3 for redband and cut- strongholds for westslope cutthroat and bull trout,

throat trout are ambiguous; each should benefit and tne additional requirements should increase

where they overlap with the trigger species, but benefits throughout important parts of their

substantial portions of the ranges for allopatric ranges- However, the elimination of the requireredband trout (those outside the range of steel- mem for

 Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed

head) and Yellowstone cutthroat trout fall outside Scale in strongholds will result in a net reduction

these areas. The distribution of westslope cut- of ^sis and thus greater risks in a large part of

throat trout strongly overlaps the distributions of the distributions and species outside trigger areas,

the anadromous stocks and bull trout, which This should be most relevant in the fringe for

should benefit westslope cutthroat trout. Overall, westslope cutthroat and in much of the range of

changes in the alternative suggest a net improve- allopatric redband and Yellowstone cutthroat

ment over the earlier projections for stream-type trout

chinook salmon, steelhead, bull trout, and probably westslope cutthroat trout, and a positive but If bull trout are listed (currently Category 1 canmarginal improvement for redband trout. No didates with review pending), Ecosystem Analysis

$14 Changes in Effects
at the Watershed Scale will be required over a distributions that were not previously addressed in

much larger part of the region outside the range Alternative 6, or in any other alternative. These

of listed and proposed salmon and steelhead, changes, in concert with the more moderate levels

although it still would not cover the core area for of timber harvest and thinning activities, strengthstream-type chinook, steelhead, and redband trout en this alternative and make it among the most

in central Oregon. This should lead to better likely to conserve and rebuild depressed and fringe

restoration of depressed and fringe populations of populations. Despite the improvements, the alterbull trout, and a substantial (though incomplete) native does not ensure that some further declines

extension of that action for some strong and many will not occur. The inability to prevent further

depressed and fringe populations of westslope cut- declines is an aspect of all alternatives, and is disthroat trout and sympatric redband trout. cussed below.

Increased benefits for allopatric and fringe red- ., _

band populations will be limited, and no change *"«mattvej ~ Requirements for Ecosystem

in the projections for Yellowstone cutthroat trout Analysis at the Watershed Scale are increased

are expected. With listing of bull trout,

 unde/ Alternative 7 to include the distribution of

Alternative 4 will provide more comprehensive

 l"ted sPecles n<* fTM^ ^ th

L

e

 Northwest Forest

coverage of aquatic habitats needing restoration.

 Plan' '^watersheds wlth less than 0.7 road miles

Listing of bull trout will not influence the uncer- Per s?

uare

 i""!e>

 and to

 ^ prior to management

tainty in the implementation of Alternative 4.

 ac

,

tlvmes wltmn

 *P?- Although <£e increased

reliance on analysis should more effectively focus

Alternative 5 — The primary changes in restoration and management activities, the relaAlternative 5 follow from those in Alternative 4. tively limited amount of restoration activity

Outside of the timber and livestock emphasis expected under this alternative means that those

areas, changes in the requirements for Ecosystem changes will not produce much different results

Analysis at the Watershed Scale should lead to than originally projected,

some benefits with more focused and effective

restoration activities across a large part of the dis- Significance of Changes

tributions of stream-type chinook salmon and

steelhead. Because the listed or proposed stocks

 In

 general

 the

 changes to the alternatives reprefall largely outside the timber and livestock

 sented b7 the

 standards of the Aquatic Strategies

emphasis areas, changes in projections should be strengthened the content or application of

generally equivalent to those in Alternative 4. riparian conservation measures. This should effectively increase the protection of riparian and

Alternative 6 — The initial (first 4 years) watershed processes that influence habitats for

requirement for Ecosystem Analysis at the fishes across the alternatives. It is most likely to

Watershed Scale across the entire distributions of benefit habitats and populations that are currently

listed and candidate species and the fringe distrib- in gOOCJ condition, because these areas are less

utions for all salmonids, substantially expands the likely to be degraded by future activities given the

area subject to analysis. After four years, increased protection. Watersheds, habitats, and

Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale is aquatic ecosystems that are currently healthy are

required in all watersheds. In addition, an mOre likely to remain healthy under the revised

Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale for standards,

subwatersheds with less than 0.7 road miles per

square mile is required. These changes should Watersheds and populations that are degraded or

improve projections relative to the February 1996 depressed will also benefit through long-term

evaluation for all species across important parts of recovery of habitats and watershed processes. The

their current distributions. The benefits are most

 Iegac7 of

 reading, introduced species, and any

likely in the depressed and fringe portions of these

 new

 pressures associated with increasing land

Changes in Effects 915
management demands, however, could make pas- species distributions (that is, the areas where habisive recovery very slow or unlikely in many sys- tats and populations are generally in good shape)

terns. Active restoration of watersheds (such as the are likely to remain that way. Three exceptions

obliteration of roads and elimination of channel are redband trout, steelhead, and stream-type

crossings) will be critical to long-term manage- chinook salmon. In central Oregon under Alterment and restoration of productive and resilient native 4, the potential for high land-disturbing

aquatic ecosystems. For this reason, the interpreta- activities (timber and thinning), uncertainty in

tion of alternatives is based strongly on the expec- implementation, and no requirement for Ecotation that Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed system Analysis at the Watershed Scale make the

Scale would change standards to more closely outcome uncertain,

reflect the forests and landforms to which they _ . . . . . . . . . . . . .

apply. It was generally assumed that while effec-

 Outslde

 *e ^re/stronghold habitats, the ecologitively managed RCAs are key to conservation and cal tradeoffs between riskier management activities

restoration of aquatic habitats, the cumulative

 and

 restoration activities are more difficult to

effects of land-use management, and the benefits

 mterPret> thus

 increasing uncertainty. Several of

realized from active restoration will be strongly

 the

 original interpretations regarding the ability of

dependent on understanding existing forest and

 the

 alternatives to prevent further declines in the

watershed conditions, and the disturbances and

 st

L

atus

 °r Distribution of the key sahnomds have

processes likely to influence those conditions in <**"&*• For fch sP

e

"

es ef ePc

 Yellowstone cutthe future. Restoration will be of little value if it is

 throat trout' downgrading the projections reprein not in the right place and does address the

 sents an

 TMTMfr ln TM&^

 anal7sls

 fher than

right problems. Even the strictest riparian stan-

 mcreased

 skepticism with the current draft. With

dards may not mitigate excessive disturbance out-

 th

,

e

 exception of bull trout in Alternative 3, and

side the buffers. Focusing and prioritizing man-

 dl sPecles

 '"Alternative 6, the concerns regarding

agement activities and managing cumulative restoration of habitats or rebuilding of populaeffects in ways that minimize risks and maximize

 tlons m th<: more

 Depressed, fragmented or fringe

potential benefits is far more likely through P°rtlonj 1th?

e s

P

ecif dlst"butions have not

Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale

 changed' The Ieg*cy °f past land management

I .. activities, introduced species, and habitat rragtnan not. ...

 r

 ... , , , c°

mentation is important. Whether the benefits

These issues represent a basic tension in the origi- from restoration can be enough to overcome the

nal analysis and this review. To conserve and negative trends (inertia) from the past simply canrestore healthy fish populations, it is necessary to not be determined. For reasons outside the scope

conserve and restore forest, watershed, and ripari- of Federal land management, some populations

an processes and conditions. Restoration activities may continue to decline. The population condican provide important benefits, but are often asso- tion, trend, and isolation at the subwatershed

ciated with land management activities that carry scale will not be able to improve rapidly enough

increased risks. Determining the cumulative out- to prevent population declines in the short term,

come of multiple activities that can entail both given the long time lags required for watershed

lower and higher risks is difficult at this scale of and forest improvement.

The original analysis was based largely on the

On the whole, changes in Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 6, anticipated effects of the alternatives on seven key

and 7 will improve overall conditions for the salmonids. Although these fishes are important,

species evaluated. All were generally strengthened they are broad indicators of aquatic ecological

relative to the February 1996 preliminary draft, conditions. The revision of the EIS has focused

although the patterns of protection and risks may the triggers for analysis and some standards more

have changed. The cores/strongholds for most strongly on the distribution of select threatened

91S Changes in Effects
and endangered species (that is, listed salmon and sideration of plant and animal species. The new

steelhead or bull trout) in some alternatives more provisions will contribute to the validation of this

than before. Some alternatives now seem to be a assumption,

collection of fine-filter strategies more sensitive to „,. ... . ... .

current issues than to broad ecological process, The small changes in rate of implementation

fimction, and integrity. Although focused strate-

 re*ultm8 from th/se

 ProTM°ns are unlikely to

gies and specific standards can have direct benefits ^ Olf?mes ^ terrestrial species which were

for indicator species, a broad, integrated analysis is Pro^

ected throu8h 10° ^ Long term landscape

i i|. L • • • outcomes are not expected to be changed by the

necessary to recognize and establish priorities . . ,

v

. . r • , i-i-jri - • r u. i . new provisions, so habitat outcomes for terrestrial which provide for the integrity or whole systems / .. ' . ..... ... ji j Ai • u c species would only be chanced it the modihed

and landscapes. Alternatives that require bco-

 v

 -. .

 3

 . 11. , , . i ,

system Analysis at the Watershed Scale in concert

 rate

, «f implementation resulted in habitat bottlewith broader scale planning and analysis within

 necks m the v^ near term'

subbasin review are more likely to meet the intent An additional consideration for the terrestrial

of ecosystem management and the integration of analysis is the increased clarity of the intent to

objectives across terrestrial, aquatic, and social change standards through the process of ecosyssystems. tern analysis. This places even more importance

on the assumption in the terrestrial analysis that

TGITGStridl ECOlO^y terrestrial plant and animal species be considered

in ecosystem analysis. It should be obvious that

Richard S. Holthausen, John E Lehmkuhl, changes in standards that wiil 3^ management

Martin G. Raphael, Randal J. Hickenbottom, of habitats have to be based on consideration of

Stephen J. Shelly and Lisa Croft dl spedes that will potentially be influenced. This

. L , j . assumption should be reflected throughout the

Major Changes that Occurred m development and implementation of the ecosysStahdards and Objectives tern analysis process.

Implementing Ecosystem Management — Physical Environment — No changes affectA number of standards were changed to better ing the terrestrial analysis have been made in this

establish the priorities for accomplishing subbasin section. However, the added detail in the terrestrireviews and Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed al habitat standards for snags and down wood

Scale. These changes are reviewed more thorough- make it clear that there are differences between

ly by the Aquatic Team. Some of these provisions the soils, habitat and fire standards for these

were clearly intended to benefit terrestrial species, ecosystem components. Reconciling these differsuch as the requirement that ecosystem analysis ences between draft and final will be essential. For

under Alternative 6 be completed prior to activi- this review, it is assumed that the most stringent

ties that would affect large blocks of intact native of the standards apply (see discussion on terrestrial

rangeland. Provisions affecting the priority for habitat standards).

accomplishing ecosystem analysis will also influ- _ . , _ , . ,

ence timing of activities within the first decade as Terrestrial Strategy - New objectives and

discussed by the Landscape Analysis team. standards place added emphasis on the mamteHowever, none of the changes are expected to

 nanfe of natlve

 Plant sP

ecies a"d

 TMH ^ c°

ns«*-

have a direct effect on long-term outcomes for ter-

 efd as

 potentially increasing likelihoods that

strial D cies plant species viability will be maintained. 1 his

potential benefit was considered in the Terrestrial

The initial terrestrial analysis assumed that ecosys- Team's review of outcomes for vascular plants,

tern analysis would be an integral part of the Several other standards in this section direct the

implementation process and would include con- management of mature/old trees and forests outChanges in Effects 91?
side or reserves in Alternative 7 and were added FISH/INFISH) where the 100 foot minimum

after the February 1996 preliminary draft version. applies. For Alternative 5, the February 1996 evalAlthough these standards were under development uation assumed no buffer around forested wetat the time of the terrestrial analysis, their intent lands and the use of the Proper Functioning

was fully reflected in the Terrestrial Team's evalua- Condition2 (PFC) concept around rangeland wettion of the February 1996 version. Therefore, the lands. Alternative 5 has now been clarified to

influence of these standards was considered to indicate that buffers around all wetlands inside

already be incorporated in the terrestrial analysis. timber and livestock emphasis areas will follow a

. .._.. _ „ , . ,. PFC standard, and wetlands outside of timber

Aquatic/Riparian Strategy - Several pieces of and Uvestock iori areas will follow the stan_

the aquatic conservation strategy have changed ^ [n Mtem^e 4 These differences are con.

from the information that was used by the terres- sidered ^ ^ review

trial team in February 1996. Ihese changes, discussed below, are considered in this review of out- Terrestrial and Aquatic Species and

comes for plants and vertebrates. Habitats — Substantive changes were made to

..„ ... .. . . ... several standards in this section. The standard for

Most significant of these changes is the use of the wa$ refined from ^ ^ 19% version>

slope adjustment factor and the resulting addition and ^ standard for down wQod was added The

of riparian management zone 2b to the Riparian ajmat sn standard ides addidonal detail

Conservation Areas (RCAs). The slope adjustment on irements for sn management> but actu.

factor was not considered in the Terrestrial Teams ^ ^ for fcwer j than wer£ ified

February 1996 analysis. It could provide addition- ^ ^ J9% Thi$ ^^ standard was ^

al benefit to species associated with riparian hab,- intended ^ i(k a lowef babm of achiev.

tats in Alternatives 4 and 6, and Alternative 5 out- . objectives. Rather, it was based on a more

side of timber emphasis areas. The added benefit recem reyiew of smdies Of snag-associated species,

will be most pronounced along intermittent The dfcct rf ^ n£w minimum standard is incor.

streams in steeply-sloped drainages. This potential ed [n ^ review ^ ^ ^ eyious mini_

improvement in outcome is considered in this mum standard> h does not differ across

review of habitat outcomes. Alternatives 3 through 7, so it was considered in

For Alternative 7, the terrestrial analysis of the context of the landscape team's overall assessFebruary 1996 was based on the assumption of a ment of the emphasis, by alternative, on snag

100-foot minimum buffer on intermittent management.

streams. However this minimum buffer width is The down wQod ^^ ems an addidon

actually 150 feet This increased riparian protec- from ^ Feb 19% standards However, the

tion is considered in this review. terrestrial team had assumed in its 1996 analysis

Another change from the Terrestrial Team's under- that an appropriate down wood standard would

standing of the aquatic strategy in February 1996 be developed. The specific provisions of this staninvolves the standard for buffers around ponds, dard are considered in this review,

lakes, and wetlands less than one acre in size The standard for maintenance of mature/old for.

Un

u

er^termatlVel ' 3>

 7; was thought ^ ^ MKmaLtives 3> 4, 5 ^d 7 is more specific

to be 100 feet at the time of the terrestrial analy- than ^ standard h ]aad from ^ Terrestria]

sis, but is now understood to be 50 feet, except in Team>s evaluadon materials. The additional specikey and priority watersheds (as defined by PAC- fidty ^ considered in this review

The Bureau of Land Management produced two technical references for riparian area management on the process for assessing

proper functioning condition. These are Technical Report #1737-9 (1993) and #1737-11 (1994).

918 Changes in Effects
The standard requiring implementation of recov- reserves might be changed through ecosystem

ery plans is stronger than what was in the Feb- analysis, but that the likelihood of eliminating the

ruary 1996 version. However, the terrestrial analy- reserve designation is very remote. This revised

sis assumed that recovery plans would be imple- understanding was considered as part of this

mented, so this does not result in changed out- review,

comes for terrestrial species.

A variety of other standards were strengthened in %&<*$ OH Plant and Animal

this section, including those for management of OpCClCS

firewood programs and for maintenance of viable In this secdon likely changes in spedes outcomes

populations. However, these changes have the that resuk from this more compiete understandeffect of validating provisions and assumptions ing of DEIS objectives or standards are discussed.

that were evaluated by the Terrestrial Team during Only those ie& where some ch in QUt.

1996 and are not considered to affect outcomes in come is ukely win be addressed.

this review.

, IT,., , Plants—The number of plants of rangewide

Human Uses and Values and Tribal conservation concern in the EIS areas is now 173.

Interest — Changes m these areas were judged This slight increase from 164 during the February

not to affect habitat outcomes for terrestrial 1996 evaluation is due to reconciliation of earlier

species. jjsts Q£ Sucj1 Species and to availability of new field

Road Management — Over a dozen objectives information. Of special note is the discovery of

and standards for road management changed from Spiranthes diluvialis, a federally listed threatened

the February 1996 evaluation to the current DEIS species, along the Snake River in Idaho in August

objectives and standards. These are substantive 1996 (UCRB EIS area). These recently discovered

changes and provide additional guidance on the occurrences represent a northwestward range

intent for road management. All changes are, extension for this plant. Since all listed species

however, consistent with assumptions made by the

 were

 analyzed in the initial review, a qualitative

landscape team in its original projections of road analysis of Spiranthes is included in this docudensities under the alternatives. Those projections

 ment

-

 The other eight sPecies that

 surfaced since

of road density were the primary basis for the

 the 1996 evaluation would all require fine-scale

Terrestrial Team's understanding of road effects analysis (e.g., they are geographically or ecologiunder each of the alternatives. The new and

 call

y restricted, and can not be evaluated at the

revised road standards and objectives were consid-

 broad scale of the

 analysis),

ered as part of this review, but their effects were ^ in the inidal analysiS) this evaluation does not

generally similar to original projections. include nonvascular plants (lichens, bryophytes

Adaptive Management/Monitoring and

 and fun&>- In

 addition, it is important to note

Accountability — Changes in these sections do

 that this and the

 previous analysis do not address

not result in any changed outcomes for terrestrial aquatic vascular plants.

plant and animal species. The analysis of effects of the revised alternatives

Allocations from Northwest Forest Plan — on the continued viability of Spiranthes diluvialis

At the time of the evaluation in February 1996

 aPPlies onl7 to the

 portion of the plant's range

there was significant discussion of the likelihood

 that occurs within the EIS areas

-

 Under

 Alternaof changing Late-Successional Reserves in the area

 tives 3 through 7 the outcome ranking for this

of overlap between the Columbia River Basin and Plant is 4'

 habitat in the EIS areas is

 distributed as

the Northwest Forest Plan. The understanding isolated patches, with limited dispersal opportuninow is that standards for management of these

 ties

 between patches. The two occurrences of this

Changes in Effects 91S
plant in the UCRB EIS area are on Federal lands. of the objectives and standards on rare plants and

As there are standards under all of the alternatives rare plant communities are summarized below,

that require continued protection of federally listed species and the implementation of recovery All Rare Plant Species/Communities —

plans, this species is not expected to decrease from

current levels. This evaluation is not based on the Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale —

amount of unoccupied suitable habitat available,

 In

 Alternative 6, Ecosystem Analysis at the Waterand the management emphasis for those areas, but

 shed Scale ls

 triggered in part by the presence of

rather on the protection afforded to federally list-

 federal

 candidate species. Recent changes (Federal

ed species by these standards. Register, Vol. 61, No. 40, p. 7596) were made to

the list of species of plants and animals that are

The general effect of the majority of the new and regarded as candidates for listing. These changes

revised objectives and standards, as well as a closer dropped the earlier classifications of Category 1

consideration of those which were only cursorily (Cl) and Category 2 (C2) candidates. For plants

examined during the 1996 evaluation, is that they in the EIS analysis areas, the changes caused by

will provide a greater level of protection for all tne rectification were significant; there was a

rare plants across the EIS analysis areas. The ini- decrease from 31 Cl and 107 C2 (138 total) to 4

tial analysis was restricted to those taxa that had a candidate plants. Thus, the number of cases where

broad geographic distribution pattern, or that a rare plant would trigger Ecosystem Analysis at

occurred in two or more of the broad community tne Watershed Scale would be much lower. There

groups. are still 173 plant taxa of rangewide conservation

The most significant changes since the review of

 conc"n wl?ich

 ^ tri^

r

 ^^em Analysis

 at

the alternatives in February 1996 is the strength- ^e Watf

r sh

L

ed Sad

y

n a f^^ct Sltua

»

on

-

ening of objectives and standards that apply Currently there are five federally listed plants that

directly to rare plants and rare plant communities. TM^ trigger Ecosystem Analysis at the WaterThese additions have significantly strengthened

 shed Scale under

 Alternatives 4 and 6, and Alterthe protection for these elements, especially at the

 natlve 5 outslde timber and llvestock

 Priorlty

edges of their geographic ranges. Several of these

standards may have existed during the review of Terrestrial Strategies — Though this standard is

alternatives in 1996, but were not fully considered vague with regard to how it would be implementduring that initial review. ed, it could be beneficial for habitat restoration

Only one nonvascular plant currently has agency

 and enhancement

 for rare plants and plant cornspecial status within the EIS analysis areas. Since

 mumties under

 Alternatives 3 through 7.

March 1996, a more complete list of rare Aquatic/Riparian Strategies — It is unknown

bryophytes, lichens and fungi in the analysis area wnich plant species may be affected by this stanhas been compiled; these have not yet been dard for sand and gravel mining within RCAs,

reviewed for possible agency special status desig- although attainment of RMOs would likely amenation. Furthermore, it is possible that between liorate any potentially adverse effects,

the release of the draft and final EISs there could

be a review of the effects of the alternatives, and Terrestrial and Aquatic Species and

specific objectives and standards, on nonvascular Habitats/Viable Populations — Regarding rare

plants and aquatic macrophytic vascular plants. Plant conservation, the most significant objectives

There are several standards (such as those for ^ standards that have been strengthened since

snags, down woody debris in riparian areas, and

 the initial

 Plant analysis are those in this section,

the aquatic standards for timber and grazing) that

 The effect of the implementation of these objeccould affect the viability of these species. Effects

 tives

 ^ standards would be to increase the positive outcomes for all 173 rare plants of rangewide

928 Changes in Effects
conservation concern under Alternatives 3 ed in any of the reviews of the alternatives. The

through 6, and for any such species that occur vascular plant task group did provide a summary,

outside of reserves in Alternative 7. Especially by vegetation type and serai stage, of the plant

important to the conservation of these plants is a taxa of cultural importance that was provided by

standard under Alternatives 3 through 6, and the SIT liaison working with the Tribes. This

Alternative 7 outside of reserves, which empha- objective would raise the level of protection for

sizes the management of those occurrences at the communities containing these plants during proedges of species' ranges. Of the 173 plant taxa of ject planning and implementation.

rangewide conservation concern, there are 10 that ¥T . . „, , „ . . . . ...

.j j j- • • i i • i CTC Upland ahrub Species — A spatial analysis has

are considered dis unct or peripheral in the his —*—. ; *r : .

 r

 ... ' r i • j r u L • j j • not been conducted to determine which taxa or

analysis areas, and ror these taxa this standard is . . „. . .

• i i • T-I • j j -ii i conservation concern may be arrected by restoraparticularly important. 1 his standard will also . . \ ....' .

• , L j j u • L tion and management activities in the ranee clusprovide much needed emphasis on the conserva- . . ._ .

 6

 ... . . - ..

 &

. r

c • i i i • r cc ters identihed as a high priority tor livestock rortion or peripheral populations or numerous FS . . .

 &

 . f < , T T JDTA * . . ' . , ... , , age production under Alternative 5. However,

and BLM sensitive species that, while they may be .

&

 f . , . . ,. . . .

• j u • • • implementing the standards regarding viable popsecure on a rangewide basis, are rare m certain ^. ,,, , . , .

 v *

c c • r> • ulations should result in no decrease in outcomes

states or rorest service Regions. r , , i • i i

tor plants located in these clusters.

Standards under Alternatives 3 through 7 would . ,- .. , . ...

provide critical protection for the continued via- Astragalus mulfordiae Astragalus onictformts,

bility and genetic integrity of rare plants. Astragalus sohtanus. Astragalus yoderwlltamsn,

Hackelta cronquistn. Under Alternative 6, the

Standards for Alternatives 3 through 7 may requirement for Ecosystem Analysis at the

increase the general level of protection of rare Watershed Scale prior to modification of large

plant communities across the landscape that are blocks of existing native rangelands would potendominated by mountain mahogany, bitterbrush or dally provide increased protection of habitat for

quaking aspen, and for any rare plants occurring rare plants and rare plant communities present in

in these communities. these habitats, provided that during the Ecosystem

_ ._ . /- T • i ^ • Analysis at the Watershed Scale, rare plants and

Protection/Restoration of Listed Species communities are adequately addressed.

Habitats — Objectives and standards provide the

critical language from BLM and Forest Service Objectives apply to the management of rangemanual direction. This direction requires that lands under Alternatives 3 through 7, and may

habitats be managed to prevent the need for list- afford a greater level of protection for those rare

ing, to recover special status and sensitive species, plants associated with range habitats. For the speand to contribute to the recovery of federally list- cific locations mentioned a spatial analysis was not

ed species in strict compliance with recovery completed to determine the specific taxa affected,

plans. When implemented, these standards would . . ._ .. . . . .,,

substantially reduce the difference in effects Astragalus mulfordute Astragalus onmfornus,

between the alternatives, as the level of protection Astragalus sohtanus Astragalus yoder-wtlltamstt

is now more clearly stated across the alternatives and Penstemonlemhiensis. Given the crucial role

for all rare plants of conservation concern than it

 of fire m the

r

h

f

e

 ^ of ce«f'n rare plants, the

was in the alternatives evaluated in February restoration of fire as a natural disturbance process

, qqf under Alternatives 3 through 7 could be benehcial

to these species associated with upland shrub

Tribal Interests/Habitat Conditions — Objec- communities,

fives and standards for Alternatives 3 through 7 ,,. .. . • • •/- i

on tribal plant species of concern were not includ- ^oxious

 weedshave bef identified as a major

threat to rare plants and communities in several

Changes in Effects 921
parts of the EIS analysis areas, and implementa- occur in riparian zones 1, 2a or 2b, and how these

tion of standards potentially increases beneficial would be effected by the types of activities permitoutcomes for rare plants threatened by weed inva- ted under each alternative in these zones,

sion, especially for these species associated with .. . . , . . .

upland shrub communities. These potential bene- Botrychtum crenulatum, Calochortus hngebarbafits could result under Alternatives 3 through 6, f"

 var' kngebarbatus, and Calochortus longebarand under Alternative 7 outside of reserves.

 b

«

tu$ TMr

' fecktl:

 In the m'tial

. f^515' 'hese

three plant species associated with moist forests

The inclusion of language under Alternatives 3 (or wet meadow openings within forests) were

through 7 that requires the maintenance and identified as potentially benefitting from the

restoration of habitat for special status species, in aquatic standards under Alternatives 2, 3, and 7.

addition to listed, proposed and federal candidate The adverse effects of Alternatives 4 and 6 on

species, gready increases the potential for positive these species may have been slightly overestimated

outcomes for rare plants located in rangeland as a result of not fully considering the types and

habitats, especially for these species associated intensities of activities permitted in the buffer

widi upland shrub communities. zones in these cases.

Forest Species — Amphibians and Reptiles — Some adjustCollomia mazama, Cypripedium fasciculatum, ment in

 outcomes may result for those amphibian

Astragalus paysonii, Grindelia howellii, and

 and

 reptilian species associated with riparian

Penstemon glaucinus. Given the crucial role of ecosystems, because several parts of the aquatic/

fire in the life cycle of certain rare plants, the riparian strategies have been clarified or changed,

restoration of fire as a natural disturbance process

 One

 potentially positive effect is the use of the

under Alternatives 3 through 7 could be beneficial

 sl°Pe

 adjustment factor to delineate RCA zone 2b,

to these early and mid-serai forest (or forest open- managed according to standards for Alternatives

ine) species. 4, 5 (outside timber and livestock emphasis areas)

and 6. The change from 100 to 150 foot miniAstragalus paysonii, Botrychium ascendent, mum buffer on intermittent streams for AlternaBotrychium crenulatum, Botrychium paradoscum, tive 7, and the decrease from 100 to 50 foot miniCalochortus longebarbatus var. longebarbatus, mum buffer on ponds and wetlands less than one

Calochortus longebarbatus var. peckii, acre (Alternatives 2, 3, and 7) are the other major

Calochortus nitidus, CasteUeja chlorotica, differences considered. Because there is no way to

Cottomia mazama, Cypripedium fasciculatum, quantify the amount of intermittent stream affectGrindelia howellii, Mimulus washingtonensis var. ec! by the increase in buffer width in Alternative

washingtonensis, Penstemon glaucinus, and 7, versus the decrease in small pond and wetland

Penstemon lemhiensis. For these rare plants that buffer in Alternative 7, these changes are considoccur in forests, or openings in forests, and are ered to nearly balance each other for species that

potentially threatened by noxious weeds (usually use both habitats, and result in little or no change

following habitat disturbance), the benefits under under this alternative. Overall, these changes

Alternatives 3, 5, and 7 (outside of reserves) may should not result in significant (>0.5 mean outnot be as great as those under Alternatives 4 and COme units) shirts in species outcomes for

6, since the last three steps of Integrated Weed amphibians or reptiles.

Management (IWM) are not required in the case

of Alternatives 3, 5, and 7. Coeur d'Alene salamander — The Coeur

d'Alene salamander is found in springs, seeps,

Riparian Species — Additional opportunities spray zones and wet talus slopes in forested areas,

exist for spatial analysis to determine which of the and does not generally move far from the riparian

173 plants of rangewide conservation concern zones. All of the salamander's range is contained

$22 Changes in Effects
within the UCRB and about 80 percent of the Northwest and are highly specialized for life in

species' range is on Forest Service land. The ripari- cold, clear, fast-flowing mountain streams. Tailed

an zone width around intermittent streams and frogs inhabit streams with continuous flow and

small wetlands, and the levels of harvest in cur- cold, well-aerated waters and are not found in

rently undisturbed forestland were considered the intermittent streams. Riparian buffers were an

most important attributes of the alternatives on important factor in evaluating this species and the

BLM- and FS-administered land. As a result of use of the slope adjustment factor to define zone

the fuller understanding of the alternatives, the 2b would provide some benefit to this species. As

Coeur d'Alene salamander could have a slightly a result of the fuller understanding of the alternahigher likelihood of Outcome 3 (habitat primarily fives, we believe the tailed frog could have a

as patches, limited species interactions, subpopu- slightly higher likelihood of Outcome 2 (habitat

lations interact as a metapopulation) in broadly distributed with gaps with nearly continuAlternatives 4 and 6, but would be unlikely to ous occupation by the species, allowing for the

result in a shift of one-half of a mean outcome species to interact as a metapopulation) in

score. This species' range is primarily (80+ per- Alternatives 4 and 6, but would be unlikely to

cent) in a timber emphasis area in Alternative 5, result in a significant change in mean outcome

so use of the slope adjustment factor to delineate score (a change of at least 0.5 outcome units).

zone 2b will not benefit this species in this alter- c . r .. .

TM j • i rr i j i spotted rrogs — 1 he ad ustments in alternatives

native. 1 he decrease m butter on wetlands less * ,—„_ ,

&

 . . „ ' . r ... . .

than one acre could slightly reduce the outcomes for the

L

 Col

f

umb'an sP°«ed

 frog would be simiin Alternatives 2 and 3, but again would not

 lar

 ">those ^r the western toad. The adjustments

result in a change from one outcome level to

 m Alternatives for the Oregon spotted frog

another. There is no shift in outcomes under

 would be similar to those for the western toad'

Alternatives 1 and 7. Northern leopard frog — The adjustment in

Western toad - Because the riparian buffers alternatives for the northern leopard frog would

were considered important for the western toad,

 be similar

 <°that f°

r the western toad' < sh,°culd

which breeds in spring pools, ponds, lake shallows

 b

L

e noted that

 "?

 decrease

 'n outf

me

 «^

 f°r

 ,

and slow moving portions of streams, only the

 thlf sPfcie

f

s

'

n

 Alternatives 2 and 3 results in highdecrease in buffer width on small ponds and wet-

 er

 ^vels of Outcome 5 (scarce habitat, httle or no

lands (less than one acre) in Alternatives 2 and 3 population interactions strong potential for ext.ri . j i • . ,L- • pations and little likelihood or recolomzation). was evaluated as being germane to this species.

 r

The habitat affected by using the slope adjust- Painted turtle — The decrease in buffer width

ment factor to define zone 2b would likely be too On small ponds and wetlands (<1 acre) in

steep and fast moving to be suitable for this Alternatives 2 and 3 was evaluated as being gerspecies. The decrease in buffer on wetlands less mane to this species, because the riparian buffers

than one acre could slightly reduce the outcomes were considered important for the painted turtle

in Alternatives 2 and 3, but would not result in a and because it uses wetlands, ponds and slow

change as large as one-half of a mean outcome moving streams at lower elevations. The habitat

score, affected by using the slope adjustment factor to

\vWoodnousc / JU~ ' » ~A TU j- . -i define zone 2b would likely be too steep and fast

s toad — 1 he ad ustments m alter- . . . , , r , . J^

natives for Woodhouse's toad would be similar to TTM"8 tO b

L

e S

"

ltable for

,

thlj SPeC1<f The

those for the western toad. ^«ff. "»

 buffe[ on

 ^etlands less ^/

 acre

.

could slightly reduce the outcomes in Alternatives

Tailed frog — Tailed frogs occur in isolated pop- 2 and 3, but would not result in a significant

ulations in and along streams in the Pacific change in outcome score.

Changes in Effects 883
Western pond turtle — The adjustments in Alternatives 4 or 6, because the standards would

alternatives for the western pond turtle would be not affect timber or livestock emphasis areas in

similar to those for the painted turtle. Alternative 5.

Rubber boa — Similar adjustment to painted Group 1: Open water species — Lower outturtle, comes from reduction in small wetland buffers

„ i , ,

 tnat

 would affect adjacent vegetation and water

Common garter snake - Similar adjustment di under MtetnaLtives 2, 3, and 7.

to painted turtle.

,„, , . , , „, ... , , Group 3: Wood duck, common and hooded

Waterbirds and Shorebirds - Changes in the mergansers - Higher outcomes by increasing

aquatic standards from the February 1996 version forest RCA width and resulting increase in water

are the only changes that potentially will affect quality undef Mtein!itlves 4, 5, and 6. However,

viability outcomes for waterbirds and shorebirds. reducing small wetland buffers might reduce nestReduction in the buffer zone for small (<1 ac)

 ing snag availability and result in a slight reducwetlands likely would lower the outcome scores

 tion

 outcome under Alternatives 2, 3, and 7.

for some species groups under Alternatives 2, 3, Group 4: Common and barrows goldeneve.

and 7 The reduction in outcome, however, would bufflehead - Lower outcome scores from reducprobaWy not be significant. The effect of reducing don in smdl wetland buffers that mi ht lower

this buffer likely will reduce the amount and qual- availability of nesting snags under Alternatives 2,

ity of riparian and adjacent upland vegetation and a d j

water quality in small wetlands. Implementation

of a 100 foot buffer zone (previously PFC was the Group 6: Harlequin duck — Higher outcome

standard) in emphasis areas other than timber and scores from increasing forest RCA widths and

livestock under Alternative 5 likely would have a resulting increases in water quality, lower disturpositive effect on outcomes scores for some species bance near streams under Alternatives 4, 5, and 6.

groups. Increasing the RCA on intermittent Changes would likely have little affect on streamstreams (from 100' to 150') under Alt. 7 will have side habitat.

a minor positive effect on some species viability ^ _ T T . r T i u- j i- • u Group 7: Herons and egrets — Lower outoutcomes through increased water quality in the

 f

~^ r i .

 B

 .— ,, , ,

• • , come scores from reduction in small wetland

larger perennial streams. . „. , „- ..

butters and consequent effects on adjacent vegetaThe addition of a slope adjustment factor, poten- tion and water quality, and reduction in availabilitially increasing the width of forest riparian con- ty of nesting trees near wetlands under

servation areas in Alternatives 4, 5 (outside timber Alternatives 2, 3, and 7.

and livestock emphasis areas), and 6 will have a ^ 0 ~ ,,,. , , T rr . ..i . r Uroup o: Dabbling ducks — Lower outcome

positive errect on viability outcomes for some ^ ; r~*~. „ , , . ~-

• r i . i j L u • j TL scores from reduction in small wetland buffers

species groups or waterbirds and shorebirds. Ihe , /v- .. . ,.

rr • u-r r-r i u L u and consequent effects on water quality and adiaetfect on viability outcomes likely would be small,

 n

. , r

 n

 , ' '

, i • , . .c c . cent vegetation used tor nesting under

and probably not significant, for most species .. • „ -, \ -,

i i i j - u Alternatives 2 , 3 , an d 7 .

because the slope adjustment would occur on

small perennial or intermittent streams that are Raptors and Gamebirds — The raptors and

secondary habitats for stream or riparian associat- gamebirds reviewed by the Terrestrial Team use

ed species. However, the greater protection for essentially all habitats in the assessment area. For

those lower order streams will have a positive most of these habitats, little change in outcome is

influence in downstream water quality in the larg- projected to result from changes to alternatives or

er higher-order streams. The effect would be rela- changes in understanding of the alternatives made

tively smaller under Alternative 5 than under between February 1996 and February 1997. The

324 Changes in Effects
habitats for which different projections might comes for bald eagles, these changes do not have a

actually be made are those associated with riparian strong effect.

and wetland areas. Several of the raptor and game- _, _. ... .

bird species are associated with these habitats. Blue grouse - Blue grouse are associated with

These include blue grouse, mountain quail, bald

 riPanan woo<" whlch ls^Y ^0

 represented

eagle, Swainson's hawk, merlin, long-eared owl, within zone 2b. Outcomes for blue grouse would

northern pygmy-owl, northern saw-whet owl, and

 llk^b

^ somewhat better under Alternatives 4, 5,

western screech owl. fd 6 th

L

an

 ^ ProJ

ected m February 1996

Again, this change would not be significantly

Of the raptors and gamebirds associated with large, and the change would be less under

riparian habitats, 6 are associated with riparian Alternative 5 than Alternatives 4 and 6. Since

shrub or herb vegetation. These habitats are not these alternatives were already projected to

strongly influenced by the refined understanding improve blue grouse habitat, these small changes

of the aquatic/riparian strategies, so outcomes for would do little to influence effects associated with

the 6 species (mountain quail, Swainson' hawk, the alternatives.

merlin, northern pygmy-owl, and northern saw- „„. , , _, , , , ,, .-

whet owl) are not expected to be influenced by Woodpeckers, Nuthatches and Swifts -

refined understanding of the alternatives. Cavity-nesting birds are influenced by fine-scale

features or the environment, especially numbers of

Long-eared & western screech owls — Two snags. Revised guidelines may lead to a short-term

species, long-eared owl and western screech owl, decline in numbers of large shags relative to the

are associated with riparian willow and cotton- understanding at the time the expert panels were

wood. This habitat would probably be somewhat convened. However, new research suggests the

benefited by the 150 foot buffers on intermittent original understandings of snag requirements were

streams that we now understand to be the stan- higher than necessary. In the long term, no signifdard for Alternative 7. Outcomes for these species icant changes in outcome scores are expected for

under Alternative 7 would likely be somewhat cavity-nesting species,

better than projected in February 1996, but not _., . wr • f „ . , . ,

significantly so. The slope adjustment factor Plicated Woodpecker - Revised snag guideapplied to Alternatives 4, 5, and 6 to delineate

 lmes

,

 cal1 for

 ,

inten

,

m

 standards that would remain

zone 2b is less likely to include these riparian

 m

. Plac*

 ujjd

 locally developed standards are

types, so no improvement for these species is pro-

 ad?Pted

- The revised standard for large (> 20 inch

jected under Alternatives 4, 5 and 6.

 dbh) snfgs 1SJ0

^

 than c°ns^ed m ^ P«vious analysis. These revised guidelines resulted

Bald eagle — One species, bald eagle, is associat- from a new literature review and summary of snag

ed with large conifer trees near water. This habitat requirements of cavity-nesting species, and these

is likely to receive some greater protection within standards provide for 6 to 10 times the density of

zone 2b of Alternatives 4, 5, and 6 than was pro- large snags than existing direction (Thomas and

jected in February 1996. This difference is not others 19793) so the new guidelines are presumed

expected to be significant, and would be less in to be sufficient to meet the needs of these species.

Alternative 5 than in Alternatives 4 and 6 since In addition, the expert panel was primarily influthis riparian standard does not apply within the enced by the long term projection of snag emphaTimber Emphasis Areas. Since Alternatives 4 and sis under each alternative rather than the interim

6 were previously judged to have the best out- guidance. Any influence of these new guidelines

Thomas, Jack W. ed. 1979. Wildlife habitats in managed forests. The Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington. Forest Service

Agric. Handbook. 553. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 512 p.

Changes in Effects 925
would probably be most important over the short- Cuckoos, Hummingbirds, and Passerines

er term, say the next few decades until local stan- — Based on the analysis of the implications of

dards are developed. Over the long run, the out- new or revised standards under the planning altercome scores would not change for this species. If natives, no changes in outcome scores are warone accepts that the original interim guidelines ranted for cuckoos, hummingbirds, and passerwere more appropriate to meet nesting require- ines. Reasons for these findings are discussed

ments for the species, the result would be a slight below,

decline in outcome scores under Alternatives 3 _.

through 7 (certainly less than one-half of a full Riparian species — The species associated with

outcome level) riparian habitats would benefit from somewhat

larger riparian buffers based on the guidelines due

White-headed Woodpecker — Same as pileated to the slope adjustment factor applied to

woodpecker. Alternatives 4, 5 (outside of timber and livestock

IT- > e .£. c -i i ii emphasis areas), and 6. The effect would be greatVauxs awitt — Same as pileated woodpecker.

 r

r r . . , °,

 est on intermittent streams on steeper slopes that

Note: For each of these species, the new guide- occur in higher elevation landscapes. Therefore,

lines call for retention of large patches and con- species that occur in riparian habitats associated

nectivity of mature forest under Alternatives 3, 4, with higher elevation coniferous forest would

5, and 7 (outside reserves). This could lead to probably benefit most from this change. The

greater numbers of large snags. However, the species classified as riparian associates in this

landscape team did not project greater expression analysis are more typically in lower elevation hardof late-serai conditions over the long term, so it is wood and shrub habitats, so the benefit from the

difficult to determine whether changes in habitat revised guidelines would be very slight.

outcome would be realized. ,-,

rorest species —

Lewis' Woodpecker — The February 1997 Hammond's Flycatcher. This species is associatriparian standards indicate that riparian buffer ed with late-serai coniferous forest. The revised

widths in Alternatives 4, 6, and 5 (in areas outside standards call for retention of large connected

of timber or livestock emphasis) are larger than blocks of late-serai forest under Alternatives 3, 4,

originally evaluated. Lewis' woodpeckers nest pri- 5 and 7 (outside of reserves), which could create

marily in cottonwoods along permanently flowing better habitat conditions for this species. Howstreams at lower elevations. Because the effects of ever, the Landscape Team did not project

the revised aquatic standards would be most pro- increased expression of late-serai forest over the

nounced for higher elevation intermittent streams, long run as a result. Therefore, although one

the outcome scores for this species would slightly might expect a slightly increased habitat outcome

increase, but not to more than one-half of an out- under these alternatives, this was not reflected in

come level. The only significant increase in RCA tne landscape projections. Given the long-term

would be in areas outside of timber and livestock landscape projections, there is not sufficient eviemphasis under Alternative 5 and these areas rep- dence to support revising the outcome scores for

resent a small proportion of the species' range in this species,

the EIS areas. Therefore, the outcome score for

Alternative 5 would not be raised. Winter Wren. See narrative for Hammonds flycatcher. In addition, this species is associated with

Other cavity-nesting species — Other species down wood. The revised standards provide more

of cavity-nesting birds are associated with smaller specific down wood guidelines than were available

diameter snags. Guidelines for retention of smaller at the time of the panel deliberations. These stansnags are similar to those presented during the dards would provide for slightly greater retention

panel deliberations and do not warrant changes in of down wood under Alternatives 4 and 6 than

outcome scores for any of these other species.

$28 Changes in Effects
under other alternatives until local guidelines are green trees and more contiguous, sizeable patches

developed. This is consistent with the original of late-serai forest. Because the landscape team did

interpretations, and consistent with the level of not project more late-serai conditions over the

emphasis on down wood as provided by the l°ng term it is difficult to assess whether changes

Landscape Team. Therefore, no change is expected in habitat outcomes would occur.

in habitat outcome scores for this species. _ _.... . .

Bats — The fringed myotis, hoary bat, long-eared

Grassland species — No expected changes. bat, long-legged bat, silver-haired bat, and spotted

.„, MI . ,, , , bat all use snags and live tree roosts, late-serai

Woodlan YTw/ma d species — No expected chanees. i u • j • • L i_ • T-L i i « a^v «.3 u Ay<- u v, ongtc, habitat, and riparian habitat. They are also sensiBats and Small Mammals — Some adjust- tive to human disturbance. The initial panel judgment in outcomes may result for those bats and ments were, therefore, based on projected large

small mammals associated with riparian ecosys-

 snag numbers, amounts of late-serai habitat, timtems and snag habitat, because some aquatic/ ber harvest levels, levels of human disturbance,

riparian strategies and snag requirements have and riparian buffers. Because of the clarification of

been clarified or changed. The use of the slope the aquatic/riparian standards, Alternatives 4, 5

adjustment factor (riparian zone 2b) in standards (outside timber and livestock emphasis areas), and

for Alternatives 4, 5 (outside timber and livestock 6 should result in wider riparian buffers on interemphasis areas) and 6, the change from 100- to mittent streams in steep landscapes than under150-foot minimum buffer on intermittent streams stood in the initial panels. Alternative 7 has wider

for Alternative 7, and the decrease from a 100- to buffers on all intermittent streams. Alternatives 2,

a 50-foot minimum buffer on ponds and wetlands 3, and 7 should result in smaller riparian buffers

less than 1 acre (Alternatives 2, 3, and 7) are the

 on

 ponds and wetlands smaller than 1 acre,

major riparian differences considered. Because Because there is no way to quantify the amount of

there is no way to quantify the amount of inter- intermittent stream affected by the increase in

mittent stream affected by the increase in buffer buffer width in Alternative 7, versus the decrease

width in Alternative 7, versus the decrease in in small pond and wetland buffer in Alternative 7,

small pond and wetland buffer in Alternative 7, these changes were considered to generally balance

these changes were considered to balance or nearly each other for species that use both habitats, and

balance each other for species that use both habi-

 rcsult in little or no change under this Alternative,

tats, and result in little or no change under this Alternatives 4 and 6 could have slightly better

Alternative. outcomes than earlier projected for these species,

while Alternatives 2 and 3 could have slightly

Cavity-roosting bats and small mammals are iower outcomes. Overall these changes should not

influenced by the numbers of snags available. The resuit in signiflcant shifts in species outcomes

revised guidelines may result in fewer large snags (sucn ^ a shift in one-half a species mean likelithan understood at the time the expert panels nood outcome) for any bats or small mammals

were convened. New research summaries suggest assessed,

the current snag requirements are adequate to

meet species needs for this habitat component. In Similarly, the adjustment in large snag guidelines

the long term, no significant changes in outcome and clarification of standards for retention of large

scores are expected for these cavity-roosting bats patches and connectivity of late-serai forest

and small mammals. [Alternatives 3, 4, 5 and 7 (outside reserves)]

should not result in significant shifts in species

A new standard calls for retention of large patches outcomes (such as a shift in one-half a species

and connectivity of late-serai forest under mean likelihood outcome) for any bats or small

Alternatives 3, 4, 5 and 7 (outside reserves). This mammals assessed,

could lead to greater numbers of large snags and

Changes in Effects 32?
For pale western big-eared bat the number of large key or priority. This change is considered to have a

diameter snags, riparian condition, and intermit- negative effect on the habitat of most carnivore

tent stream protections, and the reduction of road species and their prey. The addition of the slope

densities were important features of the alterna- adjustment factor for Alternatives 4, 5 (outside

tives. Expected results of clarifications or changes timber priority areas) and 6 are considered positive

in Alternatives are similar to those described for for carnivores. This change allows for improved

other bats, above. prey habitat and improved dispersal habitat.

Small mammals — Important components of The changes involving the standards for coarse

northern flying squirrel habitat include large trees woody debris, large standing trees (live or dead),

and snags. Improving riparian conditions and snags and down wood for Alternatives 3 through

decreasing forest fragmentation are also impor- 7 are considered to be neutral for forest carnivores

tant. Expected results of clarifications or changes at this time, with die understanding that die prein Alternatives are similar to those described for scribed levels meet the habitat requirements of

the bats, above. these species and their prey.

Carnivores — In general the revised objectives Projected road densities were considered a very

and standards, as they relate to the carnivores con- important aspect in rating the viability outcomes

sidered for analysis, have positive implications for for the alternatives. The current road density

the group. Although numerous changes have been reduction standard in Alternatives 3 through 7

made to the standards and objectives, 15 of the and the standard that limits increasing road densichanges were considered to be of importance to ties in areas that currently have no roads to a low

the carnivore species group. Each of the selected road density, for Alternatives 3 through 7, are

changes to the objectives and standards were rated consistent with the maps the panelists were given

as positive (+), neutral (/), or negative (-) for each during the alternative evaluation process,

species in die group. Overall trends were dien Therefore this is considered to be a clarification of

determined from die change for each alternative, intent and not a change in content.

for each species and the group as a whole. „ . . ~ , ,

rorest carnivores: pine marten» fasher. lynx

The triggers for ecosystem analysis at the water- and wolverine — Of all die changes to the

shed scale are positive for carnivores, in that sever- objectives and standards of greatest concern for

al species are federally listed, all of the species con- pine marten and fisher are the standards for coarse

sidered persist in areas of low road densities and woody debris, large standing trees, snags and

several species prey on range associated species. An down wood. Specifically the changes to the snag

additional standard for Alternatives 3 through 7 is standards require fewer large snags and an

considered to be positive for grizzly bears. This increased number of total snags. The assumption

standard affords additional protection for white- is that these changes will meet the habitat requirebark pine. ments of forest carnivores and their prey. The

„ . . ... . . . change to aquatic and riparian direction for

Two changes m aquatic and riparian standards Alternative 7 which increased the buffer width on

have implications for this group. First for Alterna- intermittent streams and the slope adjustment factive 7 the panelists originally evaluated buffer ^ should be .^ for forest camivores The

widths of 100 feet for intermittent streams, the ^ ch potemiall ^; habitat for this

current standard reads 150 feet For the species ,n involves ^ standards for rQad ^^

this group this can be considered a positive Qne standafd whkn ir£s tem ^ is at

change. Second, however is the decrease in the ^ watershed scale (in areas of no or Iow road

buffer width from 100 feet to 50 feet around small ^j }> can be considered idve for forest car.

wetlands (less than 1 acre m size) under Alter- ^^ The standard which ^ decreasi

natives 2, 3, and 7, tor watersheds not identihed as

$28 Changes in Effects
road densities in areas of high or extreme road Ungulates — Since the woodland caribou uses

density is also considered to be positive for forest habitats quite different from the pronghorn antecarnivores, lope and the California bighorn sheep it is impos-

,. . „ . „. . _. sible to determine trends in expected effects as a Alternative hxpecte r d Change i n Outcomes rri_ L JL-- J j j r -

 ° result or the changed objective and standards tor

1,2,3,4,5 No change the ungulates as a group. However expected

6 Slight improvement effects for pronghorn antelope and California

... bighorn sheep are similar.

7 More improvement °

/-> ,„, ,r _,.... . r i ir Woodland caribou — Generally the changes to

Gray Wolr — 1 he implications tor the gray wolt T 7~- : "]i j j L * ;—r

 . .

 r

 . i . • i the ob ectives and standards are expected to be

as a result or the changes to the objectives and . . c L ji j -L -n. i

. . /• • i i- • i T-I • r positive tor the woodland caribou. Ineoniynegastandards are tairly limited. 1 he requirements tor -a: j • i u A • /-

. .' . i r i r A i tive errect expected involves the Aquatic Conservecosystem analysis at the watershed scale tor Alter- -c u u u or • j u

.' , , , r, ... , .. r ation strategy where the butter widths on wetnatives 4,6 and parts ot 5, will be positive tor , , , /, • • , • ' _.

 r

. . .

 r

 . lands less than 1 acre in size are understood to

gray wolf. 1 he only other change expected to , , ,r inn r- Cnr ^AI

°rr

}

 ,n , • • i- i -i have decreased from 100-toot to 50-toot (Alternaattect gray wolt habitat is one which prescribes . -I-IJ-T-VT J L • -ur r

. ° J . . ... n • i tives 2, 3 and 7). However, the increase in buffer

reducing road densities in areas ot high or extreme . , , , . . / A, _,

. . ° . . ° widths along intermittent streams (Alternative 7)

road densities. juij - c i AI • / /-

and the slope adjustment tactor (Alternatives 4, 6

Alternative Expected Change in Outcomes and parts of 5) are considered a positive change

i 9 a 4 e N h ^or car'b°u habitats. Requirements for ecosystem

analysis at the watershed scale (listed species,

6

'

7

 Slight improvement Alternatives 4 through 7) and areas of no or low

Grizzly bear — The changes to the Aquatic Con-

 road densit

y (Alternatives 6 and 7), are considered

servation Strategy previously described have mixed

 to

 be positive for woodland caribou habitats,

results for grizzly bears. Increasing the buffer Standards calling for large standing trees (Alternawidths on intermittent streams (Alternative 7) and "ves 3 thr°

u

f

h 7> and

 restricting the harvest of

the slope adjustment factor for Zone 2B (Alterna- ^ tre" (Alternative 7), are considered favorable

tives 4, 6 and pans of 5), will have a beneficial

 for

 woodland caribou. Finally, the standard which

effect on grizzly bear habitat. Potentially these prescribes reducing road densities in area of high

changes could benefit movement corridors and TMd extrem,

e

 road density (Alternatives 3 through

prey habitat. The decrease in the size of the buffers

 7> 1S

 considered positive for woodland caribou,

for wetlands less than 1 acre would have a negative Alternative Expected Change in Outcomes

effect on grizzly bear habitat. Both standards were , . „ , , , ,. T .

, • • / • i u TU j j u- u 1,2,3,4,5,6 No change

rated positive tor grizzly bears. 1 he standard which °

calls for increasing the distribution and frequency 7 More improvement

of whitebark pine for Alternatives 3 through 7 n L *.i J/^I T -L- U ,,,

 v

 . . r .ii TL Pronghorn antelope and California bighorn

could be very positive tor grizzly bears. 1 he stan- ~T ^T ~\ n 7r FL

.... .

 7 r

 .. r i • j • • sheep — 1 he expected overall effects of the

dard which prescribes road density reductions in "T L L • • j j j c

r

. . ,

r

 i i •• i changes to the ob ectives and standards tor prongareas ot hig&h to extreme road densities may have i i J/^l- r -U- L L

. . . ~ r .ii , i . horn antelope and California bighorn sheep are

some potentia r l beneht tor grizzly bear habitat. • • i n -ML j j -j

 & / minimal. Potentially three standards are considAlternative Expected Change in Outcomes ered to be positive for these two species. These

, T o c XT L standards prescribe ecosystem analysis at the

1,2,3,5 No change L j i r r i jj

watershed scale tor areas of no to low road densi4. 6 Slight improvement tjes anci areas wnich contain large block of native

7 More improvement rangelands, and will be positive for both species.

Changes in Effects 929
Finally the standard which prescribes a decrease in Decreasing the buffer zones in small wetlands (<1

road densities in areas that currently have high to acre) under Alternatives 2, 3 and 7 from 100 feet

extreme road densities, is considered to be positive to 50 feet would have some negative effects on

for these 2 species (Alternatives 3 through 7). species associated widi those habitats. In some

,. . „ . ^. . _ cases, such as with amphibians, the effects of

Alternative Expected Change in Outcomes widef RCAs [n intermittem streamS) ^ described

1,2,3,4,5,6 No change above, might be offset by decreases in small wet7 Slight improvement 'and

 protection. However, protection of small

wetlands in priority areas other than timber or

Significance of Changes ;.ivcstock would resu

L

k

 /n better *"*>*?* outcomf 0

 ° tor species in those habitats under Alternative 5.

Standards to better establish the priorities for ^. . , , . ,

accomplishing subbasin reviews and Ecosystem Changes TM th.f

 S

,

na8 «d down wood reten«°n

Analysis at the Watershed Scale would provide for levels would likely not change the outcomes deterbetter protection of some rare plants and some mined during February 1996 for species associatcarnivores. Outcomes for plants of special or sen-

 ed Wlth

 ^ hab,

ltat

 fements'

 M^°^the cur"

sitive status would be more positive because of the

 rent stfdards

 «"

 for

 lower retention of large

improved emphasis on protection and restoration

 sna§s than the Februar>: 199

,

6 evalua

«

on: new

of habitats. These changes have significantly

 research suggests the origmal

 understandings of

strengthened the protection for plants at the edges

 s"a

g

 req«irements

 were higher than necessary. In

of their geographic ranges.

 the long term' no significant changes in outcome

scores are expected for species associated with" snag

Changes primarily in die delineation of RCAs and or down wood habitats.

die snag and down wood standards most affected ... . ,nn,

vertebrate species outcomes initially determined Overall, changes in the alternatives from 1996 to

during February 1996. Increasing the RCA width

 1997 Wlll"ot result m «gnificant changes ,n

by addition of the slope adjustment factor in mean viability outcome scores (that ,s changes

Alternatives 4, 5 (outside timber and livestock would be less than 0.5 outcome units) for species

emphasis areas), and 6 would have beneficial

 affected

 ^ chang

es'

effects on some riparian-associated species. How- .

ever, die revised standard would primarily affect SOCI3I"ECOHOI1IIC

intermittent streams and would have less direct ^^ w H A L Home

impact than with perennial streams, which provide JamaA BurchfiMt and Steve E McCool*

more primary riparian habitat than intermittent

streams. The effects on downstream water quality •» •• • /-1« . \ . n t •

in the higher order perennial streams would have a MajOT Changes that Occurred in

positive impact on species associated with aquatic MandaTClS and LlDJeCtlVeS

habitats. These positive effects on riparian species The primary changes in the DEIS alternatives that

would be much smaller under Alternative 5, where wilj affea the evaluation are those changes that

they would occur only in emphasis areas other increase the likelihood of protracted planning

than timber and livestock, than under Alternatives activities in the first decade. This includes ecosys4 and 6. Increasing the buffer zone in intermittent tem analysis at Ac watershed scale ^ subbasin

streams under Alternative 7 would have indirect reviem Such activities reduce the likelihood of

effects similar to increasing RCA widths under attaining the first decade activity levels until later

Alternatives 4 and 6. in the decade This could especiaHy be a problem

4

The authors benefited from discussions with Nick Reyna and Stewart Allen.

9©© Changes in Effects
for the timber activity levels where timber sale Not addressed are the substantial costs to the variactivity is expected to drop while watershed analy- ous agencies for additional planning activities. In

sis is undertaken. an era of downsizing and reduced federal budgets,

such an approach seems regressive. Management

Types of Changes delays in accomplishing watershed analysis (up to

four years in some alternatives) may diminish pubThe alternatives differ only in the extent of the lic confidence in the agencies responsible for the

potential drop in timber sale activity. Those delays stewardship of Federal lands. It may betray the prein the sales program on top of the changes in, for sumed promises

 offered by the EISs as a more effiexample, the timber sale program since 1990, will cient planning model to guide actions on Federal

impose fiirther economic impacts over the next i^ md would likely engender a negative politifive years. For example, in the Eastside EIS area ^ respOnse. Finally, there is the likely decrease in

the timber sale program fell from 1.6 billion trust in Federal land management agencies as effecboard feet in 1990 to 316 million board feet in tive institutions capable of coordinated action.

1995 largely as the result of the Eastside Screens

and changes in the FS timber sale program. For The potential decrease in federal payments to

the Eastside DEIS, average first decade harvests in counties coupled with decreases in federal dollars

Alternatives 2 through 6 average 767 million to support road systems on Federal lands will

board feet — more than two times current sales impact both social resiliency and recreation

level. Assuming that during the period when opportunities that contribute to local quality of

watershed analyses are conducted the timber sales life. These decreases are relatively certain cornprogram remains at current levels and that only pared to the relatively uncertain and longer-term

one tenth5 of the harvest reduction can be offset projections of positive effects on fish and environby increases on private timber lands, then job mental quality. It is difficult to speculate on the

reductions will be increased by 3,100 jobs during effect of other social variables such as quality of

that period. This timber is sufficient to supply 12 life or community well-being,

mills. While it is difficult to predict specific mill

closures, mill closures will be inevitable during Significance Or Changes

this period. The problem is not as severe in the „. . . . . _.„„ ,

UCRB where Federal timber sales have fallen by a The primary changes m the DEIS alternates,

smaller percentage only in the last three years. standards and guidelines that affected the eyaluation are those changes that increase the likelihood

While these changes are framed in just economic of protracted planning activities in the first

terms, the social changes that accompany these decade. This conclusion is reached by looking at

economic transitions are very real in those com- the extent of the reliance in the various DEIS

munities experiencing mill closures. Communities alternatives on new planning activities prior to the

and economies characterized by low social/eco- implementation of land management activities

nomic resiliency will be challenged during this such as timber sales. This is seen as having the

transition period from existing FS practices to the largest impact on the timber sales program and

new practices reflecting ecosystem management. payments to counties while only minimal impacts

Various institutions such as local governments will on recreation or range activities,

attempt to prevent or mitigate these changes, possibly threatening achievement of the long-term

management changes.

'Past studies have used a higher fraction but the length of the current federal harvest reduction (now six years) has reduced the

available private timber inventories.

Changes in Effects 931
ConClllSiOnS potential. The requirements for subbasin review

and ecosystem analysis at the watershed scale are

Thomas M. Quigley likely to cause a slowdown in the production of

The concurrent scientific assessment and EIS

 tir"ber during ^e first few years. The social and

development complicated the evaluation of the Polmcal Acceptability for the required analysis and

DEIS alternative effects. The SIT retained the '« P°tential lmP

act on

 commodity flows are first

February 1996 version as the primary product to

 decade con"rn

«

 for

 managers. Terrestrial species

analyze so that analysis could be concluded. The

 m e*Pec

«

d

 L

to have

 fg^

 better

 outcomes assoprimary overarching elements of the alternatives

 c|ated wlth th^ ,revised

 ^ernatives, but few

(purpose and need, goals, themes, activity levels,

 change

f would be significant (that is, changes

desired range of future conditions, and the affect-

 would be less than

 °'5 outcome units)'

ed environment) changed very little between The SIT has worked with the EIS teams as the

February 1996 and February 1997. Those ele- assessment and EISs were developed. The EIS

ments that changed the most were the objectives teams reljed heavily on the Evaluation of EIS

and standards. For the most part changes were to Alternatives by the SIT. Rather than continue to

improve understanding, provide clarity, and fur- modify the science publication to remain comther flesh out details associated with process-ori- pletely consistent with the evolving EISs, chapters

ented standards. These were generally adopted in 2 through 7 of this publication are based on the

a manner consistent with the SIT assumptions February 1996 version. This chapter provides a

required to resolve unknowns in the February brief overview of the changes in the evaluation of

1996 EISs. alternatives that are reflected in the February 1997

Given this background one would not expect dra- °EISs' To understand the specific management

matic differences in effects and consequences, nor directions being considered within the EIS process

to see rankings among the alternatives shift sub-

 and the

 associated effects and consequences, refer

stantially. This is essentially the outcome of the re-

 dlrectl

y

 to the official NEPA d°cuments.

revaluation of the February 1997 version of the

DEISs. Many of the objectives and standards were

at scales and resolutions that could not be modeled directly across the EIS areas. This resulted in

interpretations of likely effects for many of the

new standards and objectives.

On the whole, changes to the alternatives will

improve overall conditions for riparian and aquatic related species. Projecting future effects to 100

years results in few substantive differences. From a

landscape ecology perspective, the changes in the

alternatives are likely to delay the transition to the

desired future conditions during the first decade.

In addition the single size/state standards will likely increase disruption of ecological processes if

they are not revised to fit the ground during

implementation within the first decade.

Alternatives 3 through 7 provide varying rates in

achieving healthy landscapes, but each has some

$32 Changes in Effects